Also US crises make money to worth more. You can buy the same asset for a less amount.

To clarify you can have power without money, for example initial revolutionaries. Money buys power, and power could convert into money depending the circumstances.

The best thing you can do is to include an exploit when it is possible, so this can be validated automatically and clear the noise.

You are mistaking quality with difficulty. Many people have quality information for contributing but lack the time for politics.

Where do I mistake quality for difficulty?

My statement was that the quality of Wikipedia overall is high, and that one of the reasons for that is because they set and enforce standards for contributions.

Certainly many people are put off by the process and will not have time to deal with it, but my belief would be that such cases are more likely on more controversial topics, and less likely for less controversial topics. Inherently, collaborating on difficult topics will be a difficult process, which also means that there are likely no easy answers for how to make this process not discourage anyone.

Microsoft could have been sold this with a special "nuclear license".

I think, in the end game, all the crypto and decentralization will turn out to be a tactic to enter the regulated financial world, not the other way around. Stable coins particularly included [1].

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stable-coins-blockchains-seba...

Not feasible.