In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
By Jeffrey Wernick
This article proposes a constitutional upgrade: Decentralize the verification of political power the way Bitcoin decentralized the verification of money.
The Trust Problem
The biggest problem in any system is trust.
In 2008, a pseudonymous engineer named Satoshi Nakamoto solved that problem for digital money. He designed a system where transactions could be verified by the network itself rather than by trusted authorities like banks. No central institution had to be relied upon. The math did the work.
The same insight applies to government, where the stakes are even higher. Government holds what no other institution possesses: a monopoly on coercion.
If a company cheats you, you can sue, switch, and warn others. If someone in the Bitcoin network attempts to falsify the transaction record, the network rejects the entry. There are exits. There is competition. There is discipline.
Government has no competitor. You cannot switch. Government can jail you, deport you, seize your property, and end your life.
When trust fails in a market, you get a bad deal. When trust fails in government, you get tyranny.
This is why “electing the right leaders” is not a serious answer. If your system requires virtue as its security model, it is not robust. Virtue remains desirable, but it cannot be the architecture that protects liberty.
The Founders understood this tension. James Madison wrote that men are not angels, therefore government is necessary. But government is administered by men, therefore controls are necessary. Separation of powers, federalism, bicameralism, and elections were all attempts to design constraints rather than rely on character alone.
Benjamin Franklin warned at the close of the Constitutional Convention that the system might endure for a course of years but would fail if the people themselves became so corrupted as to demand despotism.
The system requires virtue. Virtue has not proven sufficient as a security model. Now what?
The Satoshi Insight: Design for Adversaries
This article proposes a constitutional upgrade: decentralize the verification of political power the way Bitcoin decentralized the verification of money.
You do not solve the trust problem by finding trustworthy people. You change the verification environment so that trustworthiness becomes irrelevant to outcomes.
That is the core insight behind Bitcoin, and it is the insight this article applies to government.
The Founders attempted to constrain power through institutional rivalry. Branches checking branches. States checking the federal government. Voters checking all of them. Bitcoin demonstrates a different and complementary method: design a system that assumes participants may behave selfishly or dishonestly and still produces trustworthy results.
Here is how Bitcoin works in plain terms. Bitcoin operates through a public record called a blockchain. A blockchain is simply a continuously growing ledger of transactions shared across thousands of computers around the world. These computers compete to verify new transactions and group them into batches called blocks. The participants who perform this verification are often called miners. If one of these participants attempts to insert false or fraudulent transactions, the rest of the network detects and rejects that batch.
No single authority decides what is true. The network decides collectively, based on rules that everyone can see and no one can unilaterally change.
Bitcoin did not fix human nature. It assumed participants might be selfish, dishonest, or opportunistic and designed verification so that honesty becomes the rational strategy even when nobody is virtuous.
The key features of this design are worth stating clearly. Validation occurs outside any single authority. Records are permanent and publicly visible. Fraud is detectable by anyone, not just regulators. Incentives align behavior with truth.
The Constitution decentralized authority. Trustless Government extends that decentralization by distributing verification itself.
This proposal does not replace democratic decision-making. It changes the verification environment in which democratic decisions occur.
Throughout this article, the word “protocol” simply means a set of rules that are enforced by design rather than by discretion. A protocol does not ask officials to behave honestly. It creates conditions under which dishonesty becomes visible and costly.
Limits of the Analogy
Government is not a blockchain. Justice cannot be automated. Moral judgment cannot be encoded into software. Politics will remain human. Values will conflict. Tradeoffs will persist.
Trustless governance does not eliminate judgment. It forces judgment into structures that can be audited.
The goal is not automated justice. The goal is structural accountability.
Failure Modes
Trustless governance introduces new risks even as it mitigates existing ones. Transparency can intimidate. Public records can chill negotiation. External verification systems can themselves be captured. Drafting may move to channels outside observable systems.
Public comment systems can be manipulated, but the current system fails invisibly. Influence hides. Corruption remains difficult to prove. Coercive power escapes audit until damage becomes irreversible.
Trustless government does not guarantee justice. It guarantees accountability.
What Trustless Government Means
Trustless government is not government without trust.
It is government that does not require trust in officials for legitimacy.
Records exist by default. The origin of every change becomes permanently traceable. Conflicts of interest are eliminated rather than merely disclosed. Private influence becomes visible and auditable.
Not reliance on better people. Better constraints that work even when people fail.
This is not an attempt to transform government into software. Political governance cannot be fully automated. But durable accountability emerges when verification itself is distributed, when no single institution controls what the public can see.
The Protocol for Congress
Congress was designed as the first branch. Closest to the people, holder of the purse, writer of law.
Today legislative authorship increasingly migrates toward external financial actors while Congress functions as a performative chamber. Lobbyists draft language. Members introduce it. The public has no way to know who actually wrote the law.
Trustless governance introduces enforcement architecture to change that.
Tracing Every Word
Every word in every bill must have a traceable submission origin.
The system operates through two records: an official identity-linked record and a public auditing interface derived from it.
Every clause, amendment, insertion, or deletion is logged, attributed to its submitter, timestamped, and searchable.
This does not claim to reveal who first had the idea. A lobbyist may draft language outside the system. But submission records and meeting transcripts create cross-referenced histories that make hidden influence much harder to conceal.
No anonymous edits exist on the official record. Protected anonymity may exist on the public interface under defined circumstances, such as whistleblower protections.
Mandatory Meeting Transcripts
Trustless governance records only interactions officials invoke as part of formal governance. It does not expand state monitoring of private citizens.
Recording triggers rely on observable criteria: scheduled meetings, registered advocates present, duration thresholds, official facilities, recurring contact relationships.
The protocol does not forbid private speech. It simply refuses to recognize unrecorded interactions as official inputs.
Officials retain freedom of conversation. They lose the ability to act officially on the basis of invisible influence.
Financial Holdings: Treasuries Only
Participation in government is voluntary. No one is forced to hold office. But acceptance of office carries predefined financial constraints.
While in office, officials hold only U.S. Treasury securities.
This eliminates conflicts of interest rather than merely requiring their disclosure. A senator who owns no pharmaceutical stock has no financial reason to shape drug policy for personal gain. The system removes the incentive rather than asking voters to trust that the incentive will be resisted.
The system distinguishes between rules it can enforce directly, such as requiring Treasuries-only holdings in official accounts, and rules that require outside verification, such as assets held in family trusts. The latter would require independent legal attestations confirming compliance.
Contribution Rules
The system regulates who is allowed to contribute directly to campaigns within the official campaign finance structure. It does not restrict independent political speech.
Within the official system, PAC and corporate contribution structures disappear. Speech remains unrestricted. Anyone can say anything about any candidate. But direct financial contributions to campaigns come only from eligible voters who can actually vote for that candidate.
Political influence flows through electoral accountability rather than intermediary organizations.
Bill Passage
Final drafts of legislation remain public for 30 days before a vote, except in genuine emergencies defined by narrow criteria.
Single-subject requirements prevent bundling, the practice of combining unrelated provisions into a single bill so that voting against one objectionable provision means voting against the entire package.
Auditable lawmaking requires auditable scope.
Lifetime Lobbying Bans
Officials who leave public service may not become lobbyists. Public service ceases to be a gateway to private influence markets.
The revolving door between government and lobbying is one of the most corrosive features of the current system. Officials regulate industries they expect to work for. Lobbyists advocate to former colleagues who understand the implicit offer. Trustless governance closes that door permanently.
Enforcement
Rules without automatic enforcement become suggestions.
If submission records fail, text cannot enter law. If meeting transcripts fail, meetings carry no official standing.
External verification systems become a potential vulnerability if they are not themselves decentralized. The principle is the same as in Bitcoin: no single point of failure, no single entity that controls the record.
These verification systems confirm inputs. They do not determine policy outcomes. The question of what laws should say remains entirely democratic. The question of how they were written becomes permanently transparent.
The Protocol for the Executive
Executive decision-making increasingly occurs outside any persistent public record.
The President retains full constitutional authority but loses unilateral control over the historical record of executive action.
The protocol constrains recordkeeping, not decision-making authority itself. A president can still make any decision the Constitution permits. But the origin of every decision, who was consulted, what information was presented, what alternatives were considered, becomes part of an auditable record.
Classification may conceal content for legitimate national security purposes. It cannot conceal the origin of the decision itself, who made it or when.
The Protocol for Regulations
When Congress passes a law, it often delegates the power to write detailed rules to federal agencies. Those agencies then issue regulations that carry the force of law. Over time, this delegated authority has expanded dramatically. Agencies now write rules that affect millions of people, often with minimal congressional oversight.
Under trustless governance, delegated authority expires automatically unless Congress votes to renew it. This forces Congress to periodically decide whether an agency should continue exercising the power it was given. If the delegation was wise, renewal is easy. If the agency has overreached, Congress must actively choose to allow it.
Classification criteria for regulatory proceedings become rule-based rather than discretionary. Agencies do not determine their own exemptions from transparency requirements.
The Protocol for Elections
The current incentive structure rewards behaviors misaligned with deliberative governance. Officials spend more time fundraising than legislating. Campaign donors receive more access than constituents.
The protocol changes incentive structures, not voter choice.
Fundraising disappears during legislative sessions. When Congress is in session, members legislate. When Congress is in recess, members may raise funds. The two activities no longer compete for the same hours.
Voting systems change to measure broad consensus rather than faction dominance. Instead of plurality voting, where the candidate with the most votes wins even if a majority preferred someone else, the system uses ranked voting. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. The system identifies the candidate most broadly acceptable to the electorate.
This method, sometimes called Condorcet voting after the eighteenth-century French mathematician who first described it, has a practical effect: candidates must appeal beyond their base, because winning requires being broadly acceptable, not just intensely supported by a faction.
The Protocol for Courts
Judicial independence is essential. But independence means freedom from coercion, not freedom from audit.
The same transparency rules that apply to Congress and the Executive apply to the courts.
Influence tracking applies to judicial proceedings. If an outside party attempts to influence a judge, that contact becomes part of the record. Recusal, the process by which a judge steps aside from a case due to a conflict of interest, becomes enforceable rather than advisory. Currently judges decide for themselves whether to recuse. Under trustless governance, defined conflicts trigger mandatory recusal.
Treasuries-only financial holdings apply to judges with lifetime appointments. A federal judge who serves for decades should not hold financial interests that create even the appearance of bias.
Verification applies to influence and process, not to judicial reasoning or outcomes. How a judge reaches a decision remains protected. Who attempted to influence that decision does not.
Objections Steelmanned
This is radical. Yes. The radical feature is not transparency. It is pretending the current system remains normal.
Transparency chills negotiation. Yes. But hidden negotiation has become a euphemism for unaccountable power brokerage. The cost of lost backroom flexibility is lower than the cost of invisible corruption.
This creates surveillance. No. It creates surveillance of government power. The distinction matters. Citizens monitoring the state preserves liberty. States monitoring citizens destroys it. This proposal increases the first and does nothing to expand the second.
How This Gets Implemented
Unlike Bitcoin, which was launched outside existing institutions, constitutional upgrades require action within them. There is no way to fork the government the way you can fork a software protocol. Change must come through the system itself.
Three legal vehicles exist, ranging from easiest to hardest.
Chamber rules. The House and Senate each have the power to set their own internal rules. Either chamber could adopt submission tracking, mandatory meeting transcripts, or fundraising restrictions during sessions without passing a single law. This can happen immediately, by majority vote, with no presidential signature required.
Federal statute. Congress can pass laws that impose structural requirements such as lobbying bans, Treasuries-only holdings for officials, or automatic sunset provisions for delegated authority. These require passage by both chambers and presidential signature, and they are subject to judicial review. But they do not require amending the Constitution.
Constitutional amendment. The most structural changes, such as altering the electoral system, imposing binding constraints on all three branches simultaneously, or creating permanent verification architectures that override existing doctrine, require a constitutional amendment. This is the hardest path. It requires two-thirds of both chambers and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. But it is also the most durable.
Partial adoption is not failure. It is iteration. Every transparency measure adopted by one chamber creates pressure on the others. Every rule that proves workable becomes harder to reverse. The system improves incrementally, the same way Bitcoin’s network grew: one node at a time.
The Thesis
The Founders decentralized authority. Trustless governance proposes decentralizing verification.
The American constitutional system relied on institutional rivalry and civic vigilance as behavioral enforcement mechanisms. Those mechanisms have weakened as administrative complexity expanded, as money flooded politics, and as the public lost the ability to see how decisions are actually made.
Bitcoin demonstrated a different security model: distributed verification rather than trusted authority. It proved that systems can produce reliable, trustworthy outcomes even when the participants cannot be trusted individually.
Trustless Government ports that design principle into constitutional governance.
It does not automate justice. It does not eliminate politics. It changes the architecture through which legitimacy is verified.
The design pattern is proven. A constitutional republic needs the upgrade.
Trustless government does not guarantee justice. It guarantees accountability. And accountability is the only durable foundation of liberty.
Jeffrey Wernick
Jeffrey Wernick hosts the podcast The Wernick Files and moderates The Fein Print. An independent private investor with over 40 years of experience, he began trading options and futures before graduating from the University of Chicago. In 1984, he sold his venture capital and risk management firm, AVI Portfolio Services, to one of the largest diversified financial firms, and has since been an opportunistic investor across a broad array of assets. He has been a Bitcoin acquirer and advocate since 2009 and a keynote speaker at Bitcoin conferences worldwide. His investment philosophy and political outlook share a common thread: skepticism of centralized power and a commitment to individual sovereignty
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.