So: success changes conditions, which can in turn create success, or not. In governance, the question is what to do about leaders using their power to create c

So: success changes conditions, which can in turn create success, or not. In governance, the question is what to do about leaders using their power to create conditions to ensure their own leadership - who guards the guardians? The benefits accruing to information asymmetry in leadership is unavoidable, but most mitigations involve transparency: patents to disclose innovation, and corporate governance laws to protect shareholders and stakeholders and increase agency. Obviously, these can be inverted to protect leaders. So the rate of compounding is larger when control over technology is isolated to effective leaders, but the distribution of benefits is TBD - indeed, such control typically creates a franchise over necessities - communications, finances, transportation, computing - to extract rents. Then previously fair markets or governments are dominated by large players with the resources to starve newcomers of any gains accruing to innovation. In recorded history, this is how it's been, limited only by human foresight and self-interest. That's being overcome by organizations and now by AI, but both are programming in the same self-interested model because there's no accepted model for social justice. Social governance models require social consensus and enforcement, neither of which are forthcoming. In this respect democracies are the easier to disable, ironically.