One thing that the article notes is that it's not a good idea to trust gatekeepers, no matter who they are. They could be government bureaucrats, politicians,

One thing that the article notes is that it's not a good idea to trust gatekeepers, no matter who they are. They could be government bureaucrats, politicians, or corporations. They're all humans and that they are all corruptible. It doesn't matter how long your regulatory rules run. If people can abuse, get around, bribes, they will. For example, people can limits a lot of bank runs by simply switching away from factional reserve banking. That would vastly increase the fundamental soundness of banks. However, people decides to wrap it around with government insurance instead. The ideal system is a one that can be run by devils, not angels. That depends on the right amount of rules, the proper rules, the proper incentives, and so on. What people end up though, is to make lot of well intentioned laws without considering the consequences in detail. They think decrees will make the problem goes away. They often done, and the problem often become worse. Then they make new rules to fix problems with the old rules. It's a pervasive cycle. That's not surprising, given that the system relies on people electing officials to office. There's not going to be enough time in the day for the population to become an informed expert in everything that governs our lives.