Thanks for your insights iamnotback!
From
my deep study of the range of plausible designs for a blockchain consensus system (and I studied much deeper than in than what is contained in that linked thread), I conclude that it is
impossible to have a fungible token on a blockchain in which the consensus doesn't become centralized iff the presumption is that the users of the system gain the most value from the system due to its monetary function.
What do you exactly mean by "monetary function"? The fact that miners receive rewards and fees?
However, I was able to outsmart the global elite, because I realized that if the users of the system gained more value from the system for its non-monetary function and iff
that value can't be financed (i.e. its value can be leeched off by control of fungible money), and if I provided a way for the users to provide the Byzantine fault DETECTION as a check-and-balance against the power of the whales and if I provided this in a way
that is not democracy and is a
crab bucket mentality Nash equilibrium, then I would have defeated the problems with the concept of fungible money.
Do you imply that your system (only) offers non-monetary incentives to miners?