#The Objections
The existence of a Damocles setup implies the existence of some kind of a functional assassination market. Without a mechanism that forces the ‘bets’ to come exclusively from expiring Dead Man Switches, this means just about anyone could use them, and specifically criminal organizations, including the most tyrannical states.
We might have a problem.
We have to look at this possibility because as these organizations already have the ability to extract money from the people they control, it’s not at all clear whether that mechanism could become another tool in their arsenal to oppress their own people.
In other words, while it seems interesting that a gang member and his family could take precautions with a Damocles set-up against the current gang leader (perhaps the system doesn’t require naming the person, only the position), it’s also possible the gang or mafia leader could simply use the Assassination Market portion to anonymously send out a hit against one of their own. It’s not terribly different from what we have now, just a little more complicated and might be more traceable.
We should also worry about the possibility that a nation state could leverage the same system to place a bounty on a foreign leader’s head, whether they are planning a genocide or not. In other words, this could give belligerent states a new tool to attempt to keep other leaders in line.
There are many theories surrounding the Trump assassination attempt in which his ear was hit by a bullet. Some claim this was staged and others claim this was intimidation that was followed by concessions. There are certainly other examples of Empires forcing their will on vassal states by the threat of assassination.
Of course, the assassination market death of a popular foreign leader would perhaps trigger the entire population of that country to start speculating about who bears the responsibility and for what motives. Also, in this case, the market bets would perhaps be restricted and tracked to a small number of large wallets, tying them back to one nation state. Certainly that population would then have reason to protect itself with the same type of deterrent, since blockchains are border-less. There is no reason someone could not bundle up several prediction market transactions in their Dead Man Switch, each one corresponding to the people most likely to do them harm.
I’m certain you can think of a current international conflict in which, you would have a potential list of the leaders involved. Once again, because transactions are not published, the amount of crypto rewards you lock up for each leader is unknown to them.
Another way this system could be vulnerable is simply referred to as the $5 wrench attack, so called because using a $5 wrench to beat someone could make them reveal the crypto wallets. This in turn could provide access to the Dead Man Switch , the payload or other aspects of the set-up. This is why careful consideration should be given to the design, which could include a ‘whistleblower’ setting that could prevent switching payloads or extending the dead man switch forever. It was a hidden feature of the BqETH Dead Man Switch, but this too comes with new considerations: for example if Tyrant #1 gets replaced by Tyrant #2.
Serious Objections.
We have now reached the point at which I must address the various objections and implications. Several people have already analyzed Assassination Politics (AP) as a terrible idea, immoral, and dangerous.
For example: Dr Robert Murphy wrote about this, before blockchain made the platforms more decentralized: The Politics of Destruction
Clearly, things have changed some objections in Part 1 are no longer applicable. We already talked about the Verification of Death issues, and they certainly still matter. As I write this, the internet is filled with rumors that the office of Mitch McConnell is pretending the senator is still alive, probably to avoid an election, and AI generated videos ridiculing the scam can be found everywhere.
This would of course be simpler if the leaders in question had their own Dead Man Switches, since their failure to check-in would be sufficient proof. Whether the incentives exist for them to have one is not exactly relevant here so I won’t go into it.
The Part 2 thesis in Dr Murphy’s article is the best I have seen. In that section he argues that Assassination Markets would be horrible and would not produce the results liberty oriented people claim to desire. He provides several reasons:
No limitation to “deserving” targets — anyone could get a bounty. Private property and business would collapse.
Suicide-assassin argument fails — If a hit-man dies in the act, the government identifies him and retaliates against his family and friends.
Bell’s anti-extortion argument is naive. For example, a criminal could say to a billionaire: “Pay me $10 million anonymously, or I will use the AP system to put a bounty on your head.” Jim Bell argued that if the billionaire pays the extortionist once, there is nothing stopping the extortionist from coming back next month and demanding another $10 million, therefore the billionaire has no incentive to pay because it doesn’t buy safety. But in reality, victims actually pay ransom because they are terrified of the immediate threat. They deal with the future problem if they survive the present one.
People wouldn’t donate money in the first place.
The core idea of Assassination Politics (AP) is that it relies on “crowdfunding” a hit. Instead of one person paying a million dollars to kill a politician, thousands of people chip in $10 or $50 each until the pot gets huge.
This falls apart because of the incentives facing the individual donor:
a. Your contribution is meaningless on its own: If you donate $10, tt only matters if thousands of other people also donate.
b. The risk is all yours: Even if the system is “anonymous” and encrypted, the government would react aggressively by monitoring internet traffic and traffic to AP sites. If donating becomes a crime (say, 25 years in prison), you are taking a massive personal risk.
c. The “Free Rider” problem: Because your individual contribution won’t tip the scale, it is rational to not donate and just hope everyone else does so you can enjoy the result for free. But since everyone thinks this way, nobody donates, and the system collapses.
In short: “Why would I risk going to prison for a $10 donation that almost certainly won’t result in a dead politician?”AP would empower the state, not destroy it — AP-driven chaos would produce panicked public support for martial law, mass surveillance, and unprecedented crackdowns. The state could even use AP itself to remove enemies.
It corrupts the culture libertarians need — A truly free society requires broad moral commitment to property rights and the non-aggression principle. A generation raised watching AP hits on politicians, celebrities, and businessmen would be less capable of sustaining that ethic, not more.
The “feedback loop” defense is absurd. Proponents of AP argue it will eliminate the “masterminds” of the state—the high-level politicians and leaders who oppress people.They argue that if society degenerates to the point where putting a $100 bounty on someone results in a guaranteed death (because killing is so easy and cheap), then AP becomes unnecessary. Because if it’s that easy to kill someone, you wouldn’t need to pay the AP system; you would just kill the person yourself to save the $100. Therefore, AP would naturally fall into disuse for “petty murders” and only be used for hard-to-reach targets (like politicians).
Murphy argues that this defense is absurd because it relies on society already being completely destroyed in order to work.The Security Disparity
Murphy argues AP is a fantasy because :
a. High-value targets are too hard to kill: A President, Prime Minister, or top General has the best security in the world—armored details, intelligence agencies, bunkers, etc.
b. The available “talent” is low-level: The types of people who would become the hitmen: “Mafiosos, Hell’s Angels, Islamo-fascists, McVeigh acolytes... small time thugs and starving junkies.”
c. These kinds of killers are not capable of penetrating the security of a world leader. They are only capable of killing soft targets—mid-level bureaucrats, local clerks, or regular civilians.
Clearly, you can see that Dr Murphy has thought about the implications, ramifications, and incentives to see what the ‘system’ of AP would produce.
They are all interesting arguments and I’ll quickly go over them in the re-framing of a Damocles set-up with limits the origin of Prediction Market Transactions from a Dead Man Switch - Don’t ask me how, I don’t know if it’s even possible.
With this re-framing, #1 is perhaps less likely, since it seems irrational to spend a substantial amount of money to kill the guy who cut you off on the highway rather than someone who might be responsible for actually killing you. Likewise, why spend a small amount of money on killing a long list of people when you won’t be around to see it happen, unless you also think they might be involved in your death.
For #2, I suppose that’s true for AP but not for the Damocles Set-up, since the hit-man could insure their own relatives with the same type of set-up. There are several combinations here with suicide/failure suicide/success.
The argument in #3 may be eliminated by the hard link between Dead Man Switch and Prediction Market.
The free-rider problem and disincentive of the argument in #4 is perhaps also avoided by the Damocles Set up since any repressive attempt by the State could result in higher bounties on the officials involved. This was also perhaps written in a pre-blockchain world, which might make stronger guarantees of privacy since there would be no ‘AP site’ to monitor. The argument also assumes people would simply target politicians they don’t like, rather than politicians upon their death, so there is no free rider here. In other words, if you’re a journalist in Iraq and you’re walking around with a Camera that could look like an grenade launcher, it’s not rational to ‘hope’ all the other guys in the van have their own Damocles set-up so you can avoid setting one up yourself. In fact, the bounty itself could be sponsored by the News Agency you work for as a form of ‘insurance’ .
There is not much to say about #5. It’s probably true, the state would most likely try to eliminate any form of participation with Damocles set-ups, the majority of people who believe in the sanctity of the state would be horrified and would demand harsher security and repression. It would empower governments until it disarms them. This is a little bit like the Laffer curve, past a certain point, the more you oppress people the less mileage you can get out of your extortion. The more you oppress the people, the more Damocles Set-ups might be triggered against the people in charge of the repression. Because the Damocles Set-up removes the asymmetry of force, it may become a deterrent.
I can’t really argue against #6 either it’s perhaps true, but again the hard link between the Dead Man Switch and the Prediction Market might mitigate this substantially since the murders are no longer ‘gratuitous’ but triggered by a threshold of deaths. It might predict that politicians would conceal the murders under layers of propaganda designed to confuse and hide their involvement, but that’s nothing new, is it ?
With regard to argument #7, the hard link between DMS and PM probably also eliminates this concern. I agree with Dr Murphy’s point here, it’s a silly defense of AP. Would the world devolve into chaos if a series of Prediction Market murders were triggered by some indiscriminate killing of a villagers whose misfortune is to live atop a rich gold, wolframite, coltan, and rare earth elements mine ?
You see perhaps the world is not aware of the fact Companies like KoBold Metals (backed by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos) are actively pursuing access to DRC's mineral wealth while local communities in mineral-rich regions have "suffered immensely from human rights abuses surrounding minerals mining. As it stands, these activities create virtually no risk for Gates and Bezos who can lecture educated westerners at their graduation ceremonies about the importance of corporate responsibility. The Damocles Set-up could actually change that balance, even as a simple deterrent.
For #8, the security disparity is a serious argument. Perhaps we need to re-visit the first article in this (long) series. The people capable of mass murder and mass extortion are psychopaths and sociopaths. There’s no escaping this fact. It’s an absolute myth that ‘normal’ people with good intentions get into office and ‘somehow’ wind up starting a war. Never mind the idea that some wars are defensive. The 20th century is full of examples in which politicians spent more time planning to hide false flag events as pretext to enter wars than time spent negotiating out peace. The 21st century is well on its way to repeat that precedent.
One of the points I made in that first article is that many of these psychopaths are attracted to such positions of power and naturally find their home in the service of other psychopaths in the halls of power. Another point I made is that their level of intelligence may also be correlated with their position in that food chain. Concretely this might mean that a smart psychopath can eliminate their direct competitors, as Stalin did rather quickly after rising to power, and yet still need a ruthless cohort of generals as well as private security made up of other psychopaths for whom the daily abuse of average citizens might be entertaining enough.
I bring this up because the last argument about security disparity overlooks this. This might make all the difference in the systems-thinking calculation of whether the murderous politicians are so unassailable. The Stauffenberg bomb plot against Hitler failed but illustrates how vulnerable such personalities might be, simply because they must interact with a entourage of other people, be served by them, protected by them and have to eat, sleep and work. The assumption that only Mafiosos, Hell’s Angels and others might be in the pool of candidates is false.
Also, many security guards, chefs and personal doctors may be in a marginal position where the reward for their participation no longer matches the initial appeal and the risk of betraying the cause might be softened by the prospect of a large reward. In other words, even if you don’t believe the argument that psychopaths surround themselves with other psychopaths who might jump at the opportunity to earn a reward by killing someone - despite the fact history is full of examples, there is another crowd of non-psychopaths people who ended up in the inner circle because of their original allegiance and belief in some mission, who find themselves with a different perspective, different beliefs, different circumstances, and for which the possibility of earning a reward might be tempting, perhaps by acting on their disappointment, newfound faith, newfound hatred or courage. We already touched on this theme in an earlier article discussing the release of documents and this is similar. There is always a marginal accomplice.
In the next article, we’ll take a look at the moral angle.