The world is not black and white, and I think you are missing the point. While what you are saying is true to an extent, we can still decrease trust and replac

The world is not black and white, and I think you are missing the point. While what you are saying is true to an extent, we can still decrease trust and replace it with verifiable and auditable mechanisms at the margins. For example, the Fed currently states that they target a 2% annual inflation. Well, the US could just adopt a virtual currency, and hard code a 2% inflation amount that was verifiable in public code. Note that I’m not saying this contrived example is necessarily good or bad, but let’s just assume everyone agrees 2% inflation is good and hard coding a 2% money increase rate is equivalent and it’s not better to give the government flexibility. This change has the effect of reducing our need to trust that the government will act consistent with its messaging; we can prove it. And while the men with guns can always change the rules (and maybe they should in some scenarios), it’s easy to see when the rules are being changed, and it’s likely harder to do so if it’s not a good idea since there are structural forces that make it more difficult. The US government is filled with mechanisms to reduce trust (eg checks and balances). And the reduction of trust is not just a government point. Twitter grew by having a great public API which it then knee capped and harmed the developers who trusted them. Would it not be better to have a protocol incentive that you could more readily trust would not be changed under you? What if the Twitter API had a governance token where the indie developers had owned a large stake of such tokens?