Vitalik wrote on X: "I don't think the'anonymous society ', or even the'financialised pseudonymous society', really works. A more multidimensional concept of identity (with the characteristics of'soul-bound ') seems necessary; if you don't, the most stable governance structure will only be the de facto centralized structure, and the rest will be attacked by financialised governance. Arguably, even today, we can see these issues at play in DAOs. Anomymity is a check and balance that exists to run the'dark side of the cycle. 'It cannot run the cycle by itself. Just as you cannot run a society with perpetual rebel energy. With regard to X-risk, I think multivariate thinking can actually help us more effectively identify X-risk mitigation measures that people can support. " One user said: "I think we need a concept of dual (or multiple) identities, not that it's often framed either way... ideally being able to switch between them in one wallet." Vitalik agrees: "Granularity of how much to disclose, minimum feasible disclosure for each application. This is a principle that many zk applications are already designing for." In addition, he argued that whether a governance act is abused cannot be inferred simply by observing the act itself. The same is true of culture, which behaves similarly to governance in these respects.