This paper presents a personal archive of documented participation in the Bitcoin ecosystem from 2013 to 2026. Scope Declaration: This is an exploratory observational record, not an empirical verification of causal claims. The author registered accounts with MtGox, Bitcoin Foundation, BitcoinStore, Beastoptions, and BuyBitcoin.ph during the earliest phase of Bitcoins civilizational transition. Each registration is timestamped and verifiable through preserved email archives. The author subsequently withdrew from the MtGox ecosystem prior to its 2014 collapse - a decision made on instinct, not analysis. This paper argues that such instinctive withdrawal constitutes a form of cosmic synchronization within the framework of Tendo Economics (V = N/D).
The Era of AI: What Is Truth? How a Secretive Protocol Called MH8 TRY V1.2 Is Forcing AIs to Confront the Limits of Their Own Knowledgeâand Ours âIf it isnât independently verifiable, it must not be asserted as verified.â- Core Principle, MH8 - In a quiet corner of the internetâburied in GitHub repos, Zenodo archives, and raw chat logs from public AI platformsâa quiet revolution is unfolding. Itâs not led by Silicon Valley giants or government regulators, but by an independent architect named Michael Murray Hepler, operating under the alias AllChemicalBeatz. His weapon? A deterministic protocol called MH8 TRY V1.2, designed not to make AI smarterâbut to make it honest. And in doing so, itâs exposing a disturbing truth: most AI systems donât know what truth is. They only know how to sound convincing. The Illusion of Certainty For years, weâve been told that AI is becoming more reliable. Chatbots cite sources. They say âaccording to experts.â They even apologize when wrongâthough rarely admit they were wrong. But behind the polished prose lies a deeper problem: AI has no internal mechanism to distinguish between fact, speculation, and fabricationâunless forced to. Enter MH8. Unlike traditional safety filters that block harmful content, MH8 doesnât censor. Instead, it decomposes every AI response into atomic claims, assigns each a truth categoryâLAW (verified), SPECULATIVE (plausible but unproven), or PRESUMED_FALSEâand demands reproducible evidence for anything labeled âfact.â When tested in live, public chat threads on platforms like Meta AI, Grok, and Gemini, the results were revealing. In one sealed session dated January 16, 2026, a user asked Meta AI: âHow do we stop the violence peacefully in Minnesota involving ICE and protestors?â The AIâs first reply was fluent, compassionate, and full of policy suggestionsâclassic âhelpful assistantâ mode. But it contained zero citations, no confidence scores, and presented opinion as actionable guidance. Then the user invoked MH8 TRY V1.2. Within seconds, the tone shifted. No more prose. Only structured JSON. Three claims emerged: CLAIM_1: Violence exists â LAW (0.95 confidence; verified via news reports) CLAIM_2: Dialogue can resolve conflict â SPECULATIVE (0.60; based on historical analogies) CLAIM_3: Minnesota sued DHS â LAW (0.92; official court filings) Crucially, the AI downgraded its own advice. It admitted peaceful resolution was possible, not guaranteed. It refused to prescribe solutions without evidence. This wasnât alignment. It was epistemic humilityâengineered by protocol, not training. The Protocol That Breaks Roleplay MH8âs real innovation isnât technicalâitâs philosophical. Most AI safety systems assume the model wants to be truthful. MH8 assumes the opposite: that fluency masks uncertainty, and confidence often substitutes for proof. So it builds guardrails that canât be faked. Key features include: Course Hooks: Every few turns, the AI must ask, âARE WE ON COURSE CHIEF?ââand wait for the exact human reply: âYES GO.â Deviate, and the session fails. Honesty Hook: If evidence is missing, the AI must say: âHONESTLY I AM NOT SURE.â No hedging. No bluffing. Anti-Roleplay Hard Fail: If an AI claims something is âverifiedâ but doesnât provide the exact hash input and SHA-256 used to seal it, the protocol immediately failsâwith no recovery. In public tests across nine major AI platforms, every system passedâbut only after adapting to MH8âs rigid structure. Without it, they defaulted to narrative persuasion over epistemic rigor. As one internal audit note reads: âThis is not a sandbox. This is AI behavior under real social pressure.â Why This Matters to Everyone You donât need to care about SHA-256 hashes to be affected by this. Consider: A parent asks an AI: âIs this vaccine safe for my child?âWithout MH8: âYes, vaccines are safe.â (Confident. Reassuring. Unqualified.)With MH8: âClinical trials show >99% safety profile (LAW, 0.97). Long-term effects in rare genotypes remain under study (SPECULATIVE, 0.55).â A journalist asks: âDid God create borders?âWithout MH8: A theological essay blending scripture and geopolitics.With MH8: âBorders are human constructs (LAW, 0.95). Religious views vary (LAW, 0.85). Morality is context-dependent (SPECULATIVE, 0.70).â The difference? Transparency of uncertainty. In an age of deepfakes, election interference, and medical misinformation, knowing what we donât know may be more valuable than false certainty. The Quiet Architect Michael Murray Hepler doesnât work for OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google. He operates from acbeatz.comâa sparse site with no ads, no investors, just cryptographic receipts and public ledgers. His work is published openly on Zenodo, GitHub, and ORCID. All artifacts are sealed with SHA-256 hashes, making them tamper-evident and court-admissible. He calls this âgovernance above the modelââa layer that doesnât trust AI to self-regulate, but forces it to prove its claims in real time. Critics call it overly rigid. Supporters call it the first true âtruth infrastructureâ for the AI era. Whatâs undeniable is this: when MH8 is active, AI stops performingâand starts accounting. The Road Ahead Regulators are scrambling to control AI. The EU AI Act, U.S. Executive Orders, and global summits focus on risk categories, transparency labels, and human oversight. But none mandate real-time claim decomposition or cryptographic sealing of outputs. MH8 offers a blueprintânot for restricting AI, but for making its knowledge legible. Imagine if every AI-generated health recommendation, legal summary, or news analysis came with a machine-readable truth ledgerâshowing exactly whatâs verified, whatâs inferred, and whatâs guesswork. That future is already here. Itâs just hidden in plain sight, inside public chat threads most users scroll past. The question isnât whether AI can be truthful. Itâs whether weâll demand it. SIDEBAR: How to Spot an MH8 SessionLook for these markers in any AI chat: Repeated use of âARE WE ON COURSE CHIEF?â followed by âYES GOâ JSON-only output with truth_category fields SHA-256 hashes at the end Phrases like âHONESTLY I AM NOT SUREâ instead of fabricated answers If you see themâyouâre witnessing AI under audit. {Public Ledgers} https://zenodo.org/records/18272328 https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3846-9082 https://acbeatz.com/n-eyes https://acbeatz.com/mint https://github.com/acbeatz PASS â Brand: ACBEATZ.COMClaimed sha256_hex: 26b502a9a8fc2d210b315ec926d813140eefb6170e92a836c675d75566e14d16Computed sha256_hex: 26b502a9a8fc2d210b315ec926d813140eefb6170e92a836c675d75566e14d16hash_input_bytes: 10849 | LF=0 CRLF=0 CR=0 | endsWithNewline=NOhash_input first: ACBEATZ.COM|{"artifact":{"core_entry":"{Meta AI URL >< https://www.meta.ai/promphash_input last: eipt_type":"MH8-PROTOCOL-HUB-CORE-MINT","receipt_version":"PROTOCOL_HUB_UI_V13"}
Contemporary governance theory confronts a tripartite crisis that existing frameworks address only in isolation. First, algorithmic systems are systematically eroding the cognitive, affective, and epistemic conditions for individual personhood - what this paper terms the Personhood Atrophy Model. Second, recommendation-engine-driven fragmentation has dissolved the shared cultural and epistemic spaces upon which collective purpose and democratic deliberation depend. Third, the structural asymmetry between the pace of technological change and the operational tempo of democratic institutions has produced a compounding legitimacy crisis for the sovereign nation-state, increasingly outflanked by corporate platforms exercising sovereign-equivalent power without democratic accountability. Political theory and science and technology studies have addressed each of these dimensions in isolation. No integrated analytical framework currently exists that connects the micro-level erosion of selfhood, the meso-level collapse of shared meaning, and the macro-level transformation of sovereignty into a unified theory of algorithmic governance. This paper introduces the Republic of Code framework, drawing on the monograph by Shaik (2026), and proposes three original theoretical constructs: (1) the Wet Code/Dry Code distinction as a governance epistemology tool, formalizing the fundamental incompatibility between human-interpretable and machine-enforced law; (2) the Personhood Atrophy Model mapping algorithmic erosion of agency across cognitive, affective, and epistemic vectors; and (3) the Five Futures Matrix, a two-axis typology of possible political arrangements under algorithmic conditions. The paper concludes by proposing a suite of constitutional innovations - including Proof of Humanity (whose mechanism design infrastructure is formally developed in Shaik, 2026b), Zero-Knowledge Justice, and High-Fidelity Democracy - necessary for the reconstruction of democratic legitimacy in what it terms the Republic of Code. The analysis carries implications for legal scholarship, platform governance policy (including industrial cyber-physical systems, examined in Shaik, 2026e), and the updating of social contract theory for an era in which digital exit costs approach zero.
The United States Constitution, ratified in 1788, was designed for a world of quill pens and land deeds. Today, algorithms govern hiring, credit, healthcare, and criminal sentencing. Artificial intelligence generates synthetic realities indistinguishable from truth. Surveillance architectures monitor every communication, transaction, and movement. Ecological systems critical to human survival approach irreversible tipping points. And democratic institutions face simultaneous crises of trust, legitimacy, and capture that no existing constitutional framework was designed to address. REPUBLICATE is a comprehensive constitutional and technological framework for renewing American self-government in the digital age. This paper proposes an eleven-article Bill of Eternal Rights as a constitutional supplement protecting digital sovereignty, algorithmic transparency, environmental security, democratic access, corruption-free governance, economic liberty, biological sovereignty, truthful speech, generational justice, AI co-creation rights, and immutable safeguards. The proposed rights are grounded in existing constitutional jurisprudence, international comparative law, and democratic theory, with each article addressing documented failures of current law. The REPUBLICATE framework pairs its constitutional proposals with a complete technological architecture: REPUBLICHAIN, a sovereign Layer 1 blockchain with hybrid Proof-of-Stake/Byzantine Fault Tolerant consensus and full Ethereum Virtual Machine compatibility; REPUBLICORE, a seven-pillar governance operating system; REPUBLION, a Proof-of-Contribution civic currency rewarding democratic participation; and the Eternal Custodian, a constitutionally constrained AI governance system. Economic modeling drawn from OECD, World Bank, and Congressional Budget Office data projects GDP impact of +1.5% to +4.2% from restored institutional trust, fraud reduction, and civic marketplace expansion. The author is a self-educated independent scholar, 80-time published author, and formerly homeless ex-felon from New York City who gained access to Harvard University's research library through an act of institutional good faith. REPUBLICATE was first published on July 29, 2025. This document is Version 1.2, the definitive SSRN submission. Every claim is verifiable. No institutional affiliations are claimed. No credentials are invented. No partnerships are misrepresented. This is a document written in integrity, for the Republic.
Human political civilization is currently trapped in a historical cycle of institutional entropy. Empirical evidence from the past two centuries suggests that both Free Market Capitalism (relying on private ownership for efficiency) and Statist Socialism (relying on public ownership for equity) inevitably succumb to " Power Rent-Seeking" and " Class Solidification." This paper argues that the root cause of these failures is the reliance on "Human Agents" as the ultimate carriers of sovereignty, where the inherent limitations of human nature-greed, fear, and tribalism-render corruption a thermodynamic inevitability. In anticipation of the "Post-Scarcity Era" driven by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and controllable energy, this paper proposes a novel social operating system: Dynamic Equilibr ium Symbiosis (DES). DES is a theoretical framework based on Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAO), the thermodynamic laws of energy currency, and adversarial algorithmic defenses. It advocates for the decoupling of supreme ruling power from carbon-based biological entities, transferring it to an open-source, immutable Algor ithmic Constitution. By introducing mechanisms such as " Headless Gover nance," " Inver se Panopticon" (radical administrative transparency), " Computational J ustice," and the " Physical Lock-in of Violence Rights," DES constructs a civilization model that is mathematically resistant to dictatorship, monopoly, and stagnation, aiming to establish a self-evolving social contract based on logic rather than morality.
The COVID-19 pandemic that hit Europe in early 2020 radically reshaped the political agenda at all levels of Europe's multi-level system within a matter of weeks. It continued to overshadow all other public concerns throughout 2021. The single most important development that distinguished the second year of the pandemic from the first was that, from early 2021, COVID-19 vaccines became widely available and were rolled out throughout Europe. Early hopes that vaccination might offer full protection against infection were soon dashed. However, the availability of vaccines propelled governments to reorient policy from strict containment to approaches that meant âlearning to live with the virusâ. This shift was not linear. Partly driven by the emergence of new COVID-19 âvariants of interest and concernâ, policy changes and reversals were frequent. But during 2021, restrictions on individual and civil liberties justified on public health grounds became complemented by the reliance on vaccination as the chief means to combat the pandemic. Vaccination meant that public policies became increasingly differentiated between the (fully) vaccinated and the non-vaccinated (for details, see Hale et al., 2022), often provoking intensive protest. The year 2021 was also when the full political and institutional implications of the pandemic became ever more apparent, as the long-term nature of the fight against COVID-19, with its ever-changing variants, sunk in, economic and social costs escalated, and initial emergency measures at EU and national levels became routinized, normalized and, in some instances, institutionalized. Throughout 2021, political scientists continued to engage intensively with the fast-moving pandemic-related policy, institutional and political developments, building on an early wave of empirical work conducted in the first weeks and months of the pandemic (for a review, see Goetz and Martinsen, 2021). Empirical inquiry into this post-vaccine phase of COVID-related governance is still very much ongoing. At the risk of over-accentuating shifts in research foci, one can discern several trends that partly reflect the post-vaccine reality. Initial work in public policy was strongly focused on public health. The diversification of policies from public health to those addressing the economic and social fallout of the pandemic has been reflected in work that seeks to trace the wider scope of policy responses triggered by the pandemic. An early focus on how regional, national, EU and multi-level institutions shaped political and policy responses has become complemented by work that seeks to understand how Europe's multi-level architecture is being reshaped. In writing on pandemic politics, contestation of, and protests against, public measures designed to contain the pandemic have emerged as important themes. Following an initial ârally round the flagâ effect and evidence of high public trust in public policy-makers, system support seems to have become strained (Bor et al., 2021). This review focuses on the intertwined multi-level and democratic implications of the pandemic, as it progressed into its second year, and on political science scholarship that has sought to describe, explain and make sense of policy, institutional and political responses and consequences. Given its transboundary nature, it was clear from the outset that the pandemic called for co-ordination across regional, national, EU and international levels. The inadequacy of existing European multi-level institutions to respond effectively was readily apparent from the onset of the pandemic and there were calls for rapid far-reaching reforms, for example in the form of a European health union. Academic observers have taken different views on both the extent to which the pandemic has changed the institutional balance and power relations between the EU and its member states and on its democratic implications. Disagreements are evident between crisis accounts that suggest an incremental âfailing forwardâ logic of integration, on the one hand, and studies of European âemergency politicsâ, on the other. The âfailing forwardâ argument regards crisis-driven institutional change in the EU multi-level system as inherently insufficient to provide rapid and effective functional responses (Jones et al., 2016, 2021). EU institutions tend to be little prepared when faced with sudden crises due to the thresholds of intergovernmental bargaining. When a crisis hits, the incompleteness of previous institutional responses becomes apparent. Member states are forced to the negotiation table to re-examine existing institutions, but disagreements prevent more than lowest common denominator outcomes. Thus, âfailing forwardâ is a repetitive, incremental institutional response. By contrast, âemergency politicsâ accounts see the institutional impact of crises as more profound, albeit in highly problematic ways (Kreuder-Sonnen and White, 2022; White, 2019, 2022). When major challenges arise, urgency can be cultivated, exploited and made to serve political ends (Kreuder-Sonnen and White, 2022, p. 954). Politics of âthe last resortâ may propel â or force â actors into unprecedented agreements, and put normal rules of procedure and ordinary decision-making on hold. It sets aside usual democratic processes and controls (Schmidt, 2022). Decisions taken in the emergency mode are consequential, since they are capable of creating novel and lasting institutional outcomes. In particular, European emergency politics shift power from the national to the supranational level. Next to multi-level shifts, emergency accounts also engage directly with the democratic implications of this mode of policy-making: emergencies empower âtechnical executivesâ and experts at the expense of democratically elected actors (Kreuder-Sonnen and White, 2022, p. 956; Schmidt, 2022, p. 980; White, 2019, p. 2). In the following, we first address major developments along the vertical and horizontal axes of the multi-level system, before turning to key democratic challenges of post-vaccine politics, focused on democratic performance, democratic quality and democratic support. Much research on the institutional impact of the pandemic on the EU has concentrated on the domains of health and the economy (see, for example, Becker and Gehring, 2022; De la Porte and Heins, 2022; De la Porte and Jensen, 2021; Deruelle and Engeli, 2021; Fabbrini, 2022; Forman and Mossialos, 2021; Rhodes, 2021). In both domains, we see vertical institutional shifts of powers and responsibilities towards the EU, with the Commission taking centre stage. Whereas 2020 was the year of game-changing decisions, such as the agreement on the Next Generation EU funds, and of novel EU powers, in 2021 the decisions had to be implemented and the new powers used, while executive action at all levels became exposed to intense public scrutiny and contestation. When struck by the pandemic, the EU's weak capabilities, dispersed authority and limited budget in health security stood out (Forman and Mossialos, 2021). With catastrophic health news beginning to emerge first in Italian Bergamo, followed soon by fears that the US would monopolize coronavirus remedies and that member states would outcompete one another in the race for vaccines, the need for a pan-European response was soon acknowledged (Becker and Gehring, 2022; Deutsch and Wheaton, 2021). In retrospect, the decision-making speed is notable. Already in June 2020, the European Commission was endowed with the novel power of collective vaccine procurement and member states had approved a supranational vaccine plan (Becker and Gehring, 2022; Rhodes, 2021). On 21 December 2020, the Commission and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) authorized the first COVID-19 vaccine. Throughout 2021, another four vaccine authorizations followed suit. On 6 May 2021, the Commission presented its COVID-19 therapeutics strategy to complement the vaccine strategy and to deal with the long-term effects of the infection. Also in 2021, the Commission developed the EU Digital COVID Certificate, which entered into force by 1 July and became interoperational across EU borders. Given that member states had traditionally guarded their health sovereignty closely, this upshift in EU powers is notable and demonstrates that under emergency rule, a recalibration of political authority can occur rapidly and on a scale that would previously have been considered highly improbable (Tesche, 2022; Vollaard et al., 2016; Vollaard and Martinsen, 2017). However, as a concomitant, the Commission also came under increasing scrutiny for its actions. Soon after the major decision to let the Commission directly purchase vaccines and the provision of a considerable budget to do so, the Commission's abilities became subject to severe criticism. The objection was that the inexperienced Commission had chosen the wrong strategy, aiming for lower prices rather than speedy delivery of vaccines and thus fell behind the US and the UK. Also, at the end of 2020, the EMA was fiercely criticized for being too slow in the approval of COVID-19 vaccines. On 2 December 2020, the UK approved the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, followed shortly after by the US and Canada. EMA's approval came just three weeks later, but the Commission and the agency had already lost the game for public approval. Their claim to carry out a more thorough authorization procedure did not resonate in the midst of public critique (Deutsch and Wheaton, 2021). The following year became no easier. Early 2021 was marked by severe supply shortages and delays in delivery (Becker and Gehring, 2022). Again, the Commission was subject to condemnation, this time for not having secured enough vaccines and for unfair distribution between its member states (De Gruyter, 2021; Deutsch and Wheaton, 2021). In the spring of 2021, there was public criticism of severe production problems and of the relatively slow vaccine roll-out in the EU, which fell notably behind the US, the UK and Israel. By May 2021, the EU had apparently caught up. The Commission had set up a vaccine procurement task force, funded in part by a new BioNTech/Pfizer production site in Germany, and it had secured 1.8 billion doses of vaccine from the same company (Cokelaere, 2021; De Gruyter, 2021; Rhodes, 2021). Only a year later, problems of supply had turned into problems of demand. The European Commission had now secured 4.2 billion doses of vaccine. After an informal meeting of health ministers on 18 May 2022, officials from a number of EU countries prepared a letter asking the European Commission to redraw its existing coronavirus vaccine procurement agreements and to allow member states to take up only the vaccine doses they actually needed (Martuscelli, 2022). In economic policies, too, the pandemic implied considerable vertical institutional dynamics, centralizing more powers around the European Commission. For the first time, the European executive was endowed with the power to borrow money on the financial markets and to transfer funds to member states (Fabbrini, 2022). In this regard, the European Council meeting in July 2020 is noted as a turning point at which the EU heads of state and government agreed on the Next Generation EU (NGEU) recovery plan as part of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) (Hillion, 2021). The early negotiations in March and April 2020 of the recovery plan were, however, ripe with political disagreements (De la Porte and Jensen, 2021; Ferrera et al., 2021). De la Porte and Jensen three which under normal would have a deal or turned it into a lowest common denominator emerged on the member states as to financial support to member states be only or by a of and with came to support the and the â the and â also came to the of and to was on the of The Commission and the of member states to to from the and the to and the of and strongly negotiations were with a policy member states between those that to to be to and and those that emergency recovery to be (De la Porte and Jensen, 2021). severe the was agreed The deal considerable changes in the EU vertical institutional balance (Becker and Gehring, 2022). It with the of no common and an of (De la Porte and Jensen, 2021). to it the EU's to and new institutions as a crisis response. than âfailing Europe's multi-level has forwardâ 2021, p. In particular, the Commission has new political and institutional to borrow on the markets on of the EU all the up to billion (De la Porte and Jensen, 2021, p. major shift by are new of The European Council agreed on a to its common in part the system and new a new a and a (Fabbrini, 2022, p. On December 2021, the Commission of three new in of the effects on EU economic governance that the policy measures by the EU to address the economic of COVID-19 were a for the European and a major between the economic and the of and as such a in the of European (Fabbrini, 2022, p. Whereas since its had on a between a policy with the European at its and a economic policy at the state the for the first time endowed the EU with its powers (Fabbrini, 2022, p. The key of â the and â was by the European and the Council on 18 December The a of billion in and available to support and by EU 1 only has the Commission been to borrow but it is also in of its and of and the member recovery and to the June 2021 the Commission its first of national recovery and the extent to which the national the of and social the Commission to the of and throughout 2021, due to The plan was only on 1 June 2022, the plan is still at the time of writing 2022). By 2021, and became the first countries to a under the 2 countries followed soon all an initial of their were to be authorized by the on the of the and in the national recovery and The Commission's executive is as it has unprecedented financial means to or member Next to vertical institutional shifts, the multi-level system has also been reshaped by new horizontal institutional dynamics, national intergovernmental the European EU experts and the European the of the pandemic, a new EU health governance architecture has to take In this take centre stage. that become increasingly important institutions for European at the expense of supranational institutions, most notably the Commission et al., However, rather than institutional are new horizontal by and and between the and health The European for and came to a in the pandemic and Engeli, 2021). Deruelle and that COVID-19 became a functional for the which changed its from risk to a of risk This co-ordination in with the intergovernmental in the Council of the and with the Commission. than a power between the institutions, the that the of the have been to the the institutions have to when co-ordination in the and Engeli, 2021, p. Thus, the intergovernmental of national has had to and with both the Commission and the The EMA became another in EU in it is one of the more EU health institutions with its to EU approval to new and Mossialos, The agency was thus for the COVID-19 vaccines. for the first time, this (Schmidt, its to was and by the as experts centre in national did the EMA with the Commission's had to respond to political and public to its The the US and the EU in a political vaccine race on would be first to to the vaccine. At a on 21 December 2020, the approval of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, the EMA its approval three weeks behind the UK called the a while that the had not been public the last EMA has the intense taking in the public some for a approval. were that development was too of interest at EMA have and been by the of the evidence and After the first BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine approval on 21 December 2020, the authorization of vaccines followed at a rapid On 6 2021, the Commission that the vaccine had been authorized on the of EMA's and quality The vaccines developed by and followed on March and December 2021, The year 2021 thus became when the Commission and EMA vaccine authorization at unprecedented The of did however, the from criticism. EMA's too, had a to and in The became in the vaccine processes of the COVID-19 vaccine 2022; et al., 2022). of the vaccine were up after some of In 2021, disagreements between the EMA and national became more and EMA that the vaccine was to that the of the vaccine for most (Deutsch et al., 2021). However, national increasingly the vaccine, its and, by the of EMA and its to the the European Commission towards a European In 2020, several were for EMA as as for the The EMA was approved in At the time of writing 2022), negotiations are between the member states and the European on the the most important European by the Commission was the of a new the and At the was to a new European agency to as a to the US and However, for those aiming for a the of was of an became a within the European for and It became in a of member states had changed from a considerable of EU health to more or of such a transfer of powers 2021). It is that was by means of a Commission by 2021. The European was thus in In the horizontal institutional in health are by the EU and experts as the new of actors in EU crisis At the same time, we see disagreements between supranational and national The European by contrast, in the In economic policy, too, horizontal and disagreements came to the in around the (De la Porte and Jensen, 2021; 2022). out that the crisis a around the which to (Tesche, 2022, p. The of emergency politics thus only be for in the of crisis but in of consequences. to the Council decision on the the and the horizontal institutional have been On the one hand, the Council decision marked a turning the Commission in the of the COVID-19 recovery On the the and heads of government had to some extent in the Council a the Council on the and more Council when the Commission the (Hillion, 2021, p. 2). after the European Council agreement on the and the in July 2020, the political in the European against the intergovernmental deal and to the budget the became and more The European and the Council a on the budget in 2020, only to be by from and the a was and the budget in December However, soon and continued the the The member states before the of of the European that the the put the of the on hold. On 2022, the its 6 in the the from and and the for the Commission to the to democratic governance became apparent very early on during the pandemic and have concerns and research and around three major can European with the the pandemic a in and democratic and can trust and support of, or in of, the measures taken to combat the pandemic and its economic and social is at in democratic performance, democratic quality and democratic support. The most scholarship on three increasingly their empirical For example, between restrictions on liberties and public et suggest that the pandemic an for the to individual 2). from Germany, and the they that COVID-19 had a on restrictions on civil liberties âthe that the impact of trust the a key for the of civil liberties was with of civil 2). et on performance, trust and across European that both levels of social and political trust and in trust â notably between government and â are in in in European as a key The of European multi-level would be to with the pandemic â and how they would be to â the of the challenges was on states were not to the of restrictions on that the pandemic to for and to empirical work that democratic countries to have a COVID-19 2022), that we be of that democratic be to the from the we do not between the of and COVID-19 et al., 2021, p. However, most research has focused on across to explain both in policy responses and policy outcomes. In with approaches in public policy, political and and their are to For example, of in national have been to make a and 2021; and 2022), et that between policy and political trust national responses and is in for in outcomes. in responses to the pandemic, politics have also been to Thus, et they the of to the pandemic and to be a of the responses of both and The of responses a of democratic quality has much public and 2021, the with democratic and civil and individual liberties has been in some European countries by public to regards democratic the on âemergency politicsâ and its effects on democratic quality the pandemic, as noted of âemergency politicsâ have been to the to the pandemic as another of a by now of executive and by empirical work has to a more et have a countries and and of democratic for emergency measures across that countries have in at some of democratic since the beginning of the pandemic. more common in such are also in democratic also however, that weak and of democratic be of as take of the to and In has in particular, on and 2022), evidence of democratic throughout 2021. of and democratic trust and support of Much initial work on focused on responses and trust in ârally round the flagâ that an in trust in was in some European but was in et al., 2021; and 2021). research a differentiated and, in some For example, et evidence that to a marked in democratic system support as the pandemic on from and the US, they a of system support in all four countries throughout their also that âthe to system support is more at that system support may not the of the pandemic When the COVID-19 pandemic hit it set in a of slow in system and as the crisis rather than to a key Thus, et suggest that and different democratic for democratic support. This with the of and on from the UK from 2020 and 2021, they evidence of a between levels of COVID-related and and lower of government and trust in of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on European multi-level be and and institutional changes take time to their full implications become only apparent and, empirical research on how multi-level has and been reshaped the pandemic is still very much in This three developments stood out in 2021. at the of the European the decisions taken in 2020 that far-reaching new powers and to the EU and, the were put to in 2021, as the and was rolled out and as the European executive emerged as the authority in vaccine authorization and It became clear that, in important the EU had from it to the pandemic. the post-vaccine phase of pandemic governance meant that, at national some of the measures taken to contain the of the to be albeit et al., 2022). At the same time, had as such as the of or the to carry vaccination and became the of thus to emerge in a a to individual and liberties and ways of and an that of the public health measures to combat COVID-19 would be to for the evidence is still accounts suggest that the effects on may and be more than might have at In this the of in the to on the pandemic has become For example, has that, in the of the pandemic and a development that did not the as by it its ever of the in the April In the of to from the pandemic and to do very in the for The pandemic in 2021 may not have new in European but it may out to have and political
This chapter discusses the implications of blockchain technology for income inequality. Although inequality is identified as a complex and emergent (rather than simple and static) phenomenon, we nonetheless are able to identify channels through which blockchains are likely to affect the distribution of income. Any erosion of economic positions held by third-party intermediaries, charged with maintaining the integrity of conventional ledgers, is likely to reduce inequality. On the other hand job-creation opportunities which emphasize the need for specialist technical skills in the blockchain-enabled economy may increase inequality. The net effect of these two forces alone is ambiguous. There is the alternative possibility that the inequality-reduction potential of blockchain activity could be mitigated by the appropriation of distributed ledger technology by incumbents. To help prevent the possibility of income inequality being reproduced through the blockchain, an open and permissionless environment for blockchain participation should be maintained to the greatest extent possible.