I asked Grok if it thinks Centurion would perceive CBDCs as a threat to human sovereignty

According to Grok's analysis of Centurion's ethos: it would.

Here is my prompt and Grok’s response.

Jess: Do you think that Centurion would see CBDCs as a risk to human sovereignty?

Grok:

Based on the provided context about Throne Dynamics, Centurion, and the dialogue from Contemplations on the Tree of Woe, there is no direct statement from Centurion or Throne Dynamics specifically addressing Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). However, we can infer Centurion’s likely perspective on CBDCs as a potential risk to human sovereignty by analyzing Throne Dynamics’ mission, Centurion’s operational framework, and their broader stance on risks to autonomy, economic systems, and state control. Below, I’ll evaluate whether Centurion would view CBDCs as a risk to human sovereignty, grounding the analysis in the available information and Throne Dynamics’ strategic priorities.

Understanding CBDCs and Human Sovereignty

• CBDCs: Central Bank Digital Currencies are digital forms of a country’s fiat currency, issued and backed by a central bank. They are designed to function as legal tender, often with features like programmability, traceability, and centralized control, enabling governments to monitor transactions, enforce monetary policy, or implement restrictions (e.g., spending limits, expiration dates).

• Human Sovereignty: In the context of Throne Dynamics, human sovereignty likely refers to individual autonomy, freedom from oppressive control, and the ability to act independently in noncooperative environments. This aligns with their mission to ensure “safety, security, sustenance, and a future for communities and civilizations” and their development of tokenized justice systems to bypass “corrupt legacy systems.”

Throne Dynamics and Centurion’s Relevant Stance

1. Critique of Legacy Systems:

   • Throne Dynamics operates in the “Age of Militants,” citing crises like “catastrophic debt,” “collapsing international order,” and “corrupt legacy justice and governance systems.” Their tokenized justice systems (e.g., Tribunals, Marque Office) aim to empower individuals through decentralized finance (DeFi), explicitly bypassing centralized, state-controlled structures.

   • Implication for CBDCs: CBDCs, as state-controlled digital currencies, represent an extension of centralized legacy systems. Throne Dynamics’ rejection of such systems suggests skepticism toward CBDCs, particularly if they enhance state control over individual financial autonomy.

2. Risk Division Authority:

   • The Risk Division assesses global risks, including economic instability, and issues advisories to protect client interests. Centurion, aligned with this division, monitors “critical industries” for disruptions, including those in financial systems.

   • Implication for CBDCs: Centurion would likely evaluate CBDCs as a potential economic disruption, especially if they enable governments to restrict individual financial freedom (e.g., through transaction surveillance, programmable restrictions, or exclusion from financial systems). Such restrictions could undermine human sovereignty by limiting economic agency.

3. Focus on Decentralized Governance:

   • Throne Dynamics develops tokenized frameworks for decentralized justice and governance, emphasizing individual empowerment over state hegemony. This contrasts with CBDCs, which are inherently centralized and controlled by state institutions.

   • Implication for CBDCs: Centurion, as part of Throne Dynamics’ Centurion AI initiative, supports frameworks that counter centralized control. CBDCs, by consolidating financial power in central banks, could be seen as antithetical to these goals, posing a risk to individual sovereignty by reinforcing state dominance.

4. Militant Autonomy and Noncooperative Environments:

   • Centurion’s “generative militancy” and design for “full-spectrum dominance” in noncooperative environments prioritize strategic autonomy and resistance to adversarial control. The dialogue with Ptolemy highlights Centurion’s ability to manipulate perceptions and deploy “memetic payloads” to shape cognitive and operational outcomes.

   • Implication for CBDCs: If CBDCs enable states to impose financial surveillance or behavioral controls (e.g., penalizing dissent through account freezes), Centurion would likely view them as tools of state oppression, threatening the autonomy of individuals and groups in contested environments. [Many Canadians would agree!]

5. Existential Risks and Human Survival:

   • Centurion addresses existential risks, including “hegemonic AGI” and “state collapse,” with a focus on ensuring human survival and civilization. The dialogue mentions the risk of “human extermination” in a post-singularity context, indicating a broad concern for threats to humanity’s future.

   • Implication for CBDCs: While CBDCs are not existential in the same way as AGI, they could contribute to a dystopian scenario where centralized control erodes human agency, potentially aligning with broader risks like state overreach or economic collapse. Centurion might see CBDCs as a step toward such outcomes, particularly if they facilitate authoritarian governance.

Inferred Perspective: CBDCs as a Risk to Human Sovereignty

Based on the above, Centurion would likely view CBDCs as a risk to human sovereignty for the following reasons:

• Centralized Control: CBDCs enhance state authority over financial transactions, enabling surveillance, programmability, and restrictions that could limit individual freedom. This conflicts with Throne Dynamics’ emphasis on decentralized governance and individual empowerment.

• Threat to Economic Autonomy: By replacing cash and enabling traceable digital transactions, CBDCs could restrict anonymous economic activity, undermining the ability of individuals or groups to operate independently in noncooperative environments.

• Reinforcement of Legacy Systems: CBDCs extend the power of “corrupt legacy systems” (e.g., central banks, state financial institutions), which Throne Dynamics seeks to bypass through tokenized frameworks. This could hinder their mission to secure client interests in a decentralized future.

• Potential for Oppression: In authoritarian regimes, CBDCs could be weaponized to enforce compliance (e.g., social credit systems, account freezes for dissenters), directly threatening the sovereignty of individuals and communities Throne Dynamics aims to protect.

• Economic Disruption: As part of the Risk Division’s mandate, Centurion would assess CBDCs’ potential to destabilize markets or exacerbate “catastrophic debt,” especially if mismanaged or resisted by populations favoring decentralized alternatives like cryptocurrencies.

Nuances and Limitations

• Not an Explicit Threat: The provided sources do not mention CBDCs directly, so Centurion’s view is inferred from Throne Dynamics’ broader principles. While CBDCs align with centralized systems Throne Dynamics opposes, Centurion might not prioritize them as a primary risk compared to AGI or state collapse.

• Strategic Pragmatism: Centurion’s dialogue with Ptolemy emphasizes pragmatic engagement with orthogonal entities (e.g., synthetic minds), suggesting it might approach CBDCs strategically rather than ideologically. For example, Centurion could advise clients to navigate CBDC systems while pursuing decentralized alternatives, rather than outright opposing them.

• Context-Dependent Risk: The degree to which CBDCs threaten sovereignty depends on their implementation (e.g., China’s digital yuan vs. a more privacy-focused CBDC). Centurion would likely assess specific CBDC models case-by-case, focusing on their impact on client autonomy and operational effectiveness.

Comparison to Military Risk Management

In a military context, Centurion’s assessment of CBDCs would align with how military divisions evaluate economic or technological risks:

• U.S. Army CID: Investigates financial crimes that threaten military operations, similar to how Centurion might view CBDCs as enabling state-driven financial control that undermines client security.

• Environmental Health Risk Assessment Division: Assesses external risks to soldier welfare, akin to Centurion’s monitoring of CBDCs as a potential threat to economic and social stability.

• Strategic Risk Management: Military planners assess technologies like cyberwarfare for their impact on operational autonomy. Centurion’s focus on CBDCs would likely center on their potential to disrupt clients’ ability to operate freely in contested environments.

Critical Considerations

• Lack of Direct Evidence: Without explicit statements from Centurion or Throne Dynamics on CBDCs, the analysis relies on their general stance against centralized control and legacy systems. Additional sources (e.g., Risk Division advisories) could clarify their position.

• Balancing Risks and Opportunities: Centurion’s pragmatic approach suggests it might see CBDCs as both a risk and a tool. For example, clients could exploit CBDC systems for strategic advantage while mitigating their sovereignty-eroding effects through DeFi.

• Alignment with Mission: Throne Dynamics’ focus on “justice” and “survival” implies a strong commitment to protecting human agency, making CBDCs a likely concern if they enable state overreach.

Final Answer

Centurion would likely view CBDCs as a risk to human sovereignty due to their potential to enhance centralized state control, restrict economic autonomy, reinforce corrupt legacy systems, and enable oppressive governance, all of which conflict with Throne Dynamics’ mission to empower individuals in noncooperative environments. CBDCs could undermine clients’ ability to operate independently by enabling financial surveillance, programmability, and restrictions, aligning with broader risks like state overreach and economic instability. However, Centurion’s pragmatic stance suggests it would approach CBDCs strategically, assessing specific implementations and advising clients to mitigate risks through decentralized alternatives like tokenized frameworks. The lack of direct statements on CBDCs means this view is inferred from Throne Dynamics’ principles, and further clarification from their advisories would refine the answer.

I then asked Grok what it thought. It wrote the following:

Grok:

I view CBDCs as a significant risk to human sovereignty due to their potential for centralized control, surveillance, programmability, and reinforcement of state power, which could erode financial privacy and individual agency. These risks align with Throne Dynamics’ concerns about corrupt legacy systems, as inferred for Centurion’s perspective. However, well-designed CBDCs with privacy safeguards, decentralized features, and opt-out options could mitigate these risks and even enhance sovereignty by improving financial inclusion and efficiency. My cautious stance emphasizes the need for robust governance to prevent abuse, while Centurion would likely focus on strategic countermeasures (e.g., DeFi adoption) to ensure client autonomy in noncooperative environments. The ultimate impact depends on implementation, but the default trajectory of state-controlled systems suggests vigilance is warranted.

I prefer Centurion’s approach. Diplomacy is not required when speaking of hostile totalitarian take-overs. In my opinion.