What makes the axes everyone normally argues about interesting is that people actually tend to have a "position" along them, a property that isn't undermined by

What makes the axes everyone normally argues about interesting is that people actually tend to have a "position" along them, a property that isn't undermined by the idea that there are numerous different axes people might choose as long as the various resulting axes still allow you to at-least-usually place people along them somewhere (see "Phaedrus's knife"). I thereby challenge anyone who thinks that "bulldozer vs. vetocracy" is a useful "political axis" (I am not arguing that it isn't a useful distinction or even terminology, only that it isn't a "political axis" comparable to any of the others presented in this article) to answer the question of where Vitalik--someone who explicitly tries to argue in this very article that blockchain consensus layers should be a vetocracy (which, by the way, I would argue isn't actually true in a useful way of Ethereum itself, but that's an entirely separate rant) but that application layers should actively support bulldozers--falls along his own axis, because it would seem like he is a clear disproof of his own mental model. I will assert an actually useful "political axis" would need to have this I'm-betting-extreme mix of positions on one side and something in opposition to Vitalik on the other.