Saylor will only have power over me if I choose/allow myself to be at the bottom of a control hierarchy that he bought himself to the top of by a series of voluntary transactions where the recipient determined they'd rather have Saylor's coins than whatever else they could have in exchange instead. do you not see how that is fundamentally different than the alternatives? also, your premise is flimsy: the "problem of concentration of wealth" is not a problem to be solved - and definitely not by the base layers of a monetary technology. it's a natural result of many people valuing what someone else is providing. "solving" that "problem" in any way beyond emergent collective voluntary choices is a slippery slope to (artificially and likely coercively) removing the incentives that encourage an individual to innovate and create value in the first place. ..which is how you make sure civilization never emerges.