wow, one of the best comments I have read here since month. I almost lost hope that people here are actually into logic of distributed consensus.

I don't expect to see that taking off around here anytime soon, unfortunately.

maybe a grassroots movement from the community. I´m no expert in distributed consensus but I feel that there are some smart users lurking around here.

then you are going to act to get more of those resources. The very process of doing so means that consensus is less about population intent and more about your intent. That is the nature of the architecture.

The real solution is to move philosophically away from a top-down expectation of "oracular" wisdom and toward a system which builds individual representations and gateways and content from the individual out. To stop confusing the actions of crowds with the wisdom of crowds.

When I understand you right, your assumption is that there is either no collusion-resistant oracle OR sharding/super linear curves do not force consolidation of stake AND that we need proof-of-life to extract the action of the crowd instead of polling the "wise"-crowd.

Predicition markets like futarchy are not perfect - true. They are practically collusion resistant. Proving individuals, --> needs a mechanism which averages out the user behind n accounts/sock puppets. You can average out by choosing some form of economic- or ecologic proof. When you go against economic proof, you remove stake... hmm now whats left? Attention? ID/bio-metrics? ...there are not that many smart proxies for uniqueness. One can analyse networking and connectivity - but this requires either semi-centralization/checkpoints/mods or a few users providing hard-proof/giving up anonymity.