The pendulum has swung toward extreme distrust of authority since the bank bailouts, so now many want to put the machine in charge of natural law using mathematical governance (code as law). I understand you oppose this view. We are fortunate to have EOS for the time being at least and since corruption takes time (the USA has had a good run for a couple of centuries before becoming mostly corrupt), hopefully the community can solve any problems that come up.

You say that most people are good which is true, but I worry that the psychopaths which are a minority always seem to rise to the top. Is it impossible that 15 BP's wouldn't eventually become compromised by shadow authority, either by outsiders sponsored by governments to remake EOS in their own image? I note that Gavin Andresen and Craig Wright are now on the outside of a system they helped create in the beginning. Did Blockstream push them out? Is the means of central control one of attrition and funding alignment of shadow principles? The fact that Blockstream seems to be in lockstep with everyone on the same page throws red flags for me. I'm hoping that heavily funded government sponsored BP's obedient to shadow authority never show up or get exposed for doing so.

I think we have plenty of time before we have to worry about real corruption in this space though. By then, maybe the technology can scale in a lazy manner (without LN similar to BCH). Had the hardware been about 20 years more advanced, we might not now be having this scaling debate, but it has created an opportunity for EOS to step in. I don't see ETH solving the scaling issue any time soon enough to matter, but if EOS becomes centralized enough, the world may yet revisit ETH or a different black swan.