DFINITY Foundation

Wenzel

ICDevs.org

CryptoIsGood

Anvil

ICPL.app

ysyms

The Accumulators’ Neuron

RawTech Venture

Paul Young

ICPMANUAL

8YearGangDAO

Isaac Valadez

Krzysztof Żelazko

Nicolas.ic

Smaug’s Neuron for Retail Investors

ICLight.io

Synapse (see neuron merger plan with the Wenzel known neuron)

Taggr Network

CodeGov.org

Sonic AMM

Rakeoff.io

OpenChat

ELNA AI

GEEKFACTORY

ICP Hub México

ICP Hub Poland

Jerry Banfield

WaterNeuron

ICP Hub Bulgaria

Gold DAO

NeuronPool

LORIMER ♾️ 🐶

B3Pay

ZenithCode

Aviate Labs

D-QUORUM

Yuku AI

CO.DELTA △

DragginCorp

Gwojda

Thyassa

🌮 TACO DAO Neuron

Ωmega-reject

Ωmega-vote

αlpha-vote

Cybersecurity

cyberowl

Dexter Caff/acc

Cosmicrafts

1. The Rise of the Platform Gatekeeper  Some individuals rise to positions of informal authority — moderators, community “thought leaders,” or forum gatekeepers. They’re not elected, not accountable, but wield enormous symbolic power.  A typical pattern:      They dominate discussion spaces.    They position themselves as “the only reasonable voice.”    They decide who is allowed in or out of technical conversations.    They portray dissent as dangerous or uninformed.  This creates a chilling effect where real experts withdraw, leaving the gatekeeper with even more influence.    2. VC-Funded Influence  In modern tech ecosystems, venture money doesn’t just buy shares — it buys control of the narrative.  Bad-faith actors sometimes benefit from:      VC backing that expects them to shape discourse in ways beneficial to investors    incentives to suppress or discredit competing projects    pressure to steer the “public conversation” toward investor-aligned outcomes  This is not speculation — it’s an established pattern across multiple industries.    3. The Narcissist’s Playbook: Destabilise to Control  When someone has a narcissistic drive for dominance, giving them a platform creates predictable outcomes:  ✔ Constant conflict creation  They manufacture drama, crises, and moral panics to stay at the center of attention.  ✔ “Divide and rule” tactics  Pitting contributors against each other, whisper campaigns, and selective misrepresentation.  ✔ Rewriting the narrative  They present themselves as the hero fighting corruption, incompetence, or imaginary enemies.  ✔ Silencing via ridicule or moralising  Anyone who challenges them becomes a target — framed as unstable, malicious, or uninformed.  These tactics erode a community’s psychological resilience and make people dependent on the gatekeeper for “interpreting” events.    4. How They Undermine a Global Platform  Bad-faith actors are most dangerous when they insert themselves at structural choke points, such as:      developer forums    governance discussion boards    technical proposal review channels    user support and onboarding spaces  From there, they can:      sabotage discussions,    distort technical facts,    stall consensus,    mislead newcomers,    and create reputational firestorms that harm the entire ecosystem.  A single manipulator can do incalculable damage.    5. How You Spot This Behaviour Early  Look out for these red flags:  🚩 Over-inflated sense of importance (“I speak for the whole community”)  🚩 Constant personal attacks disguised as “concern” or “critique”  🚩 Attempts to get people fired, banned, or discredited  🚩 Aggression toward contributors who won’t “kiss the ring”  🚩 Gatekeeping access to leadership or decision-makers  🚩 Reflexive dismissal of any viewpoint outside their control  🚩 Dependence on drama, conflict, and public spectacle  These are not disagreements, they are patterns of abuse.    6. Why Communities Fall for It  Because manipulative control masquerades as:      “quality control”    “protecting the brand”    “guarding the ecosystem”    “keeping out scammers”    “maintaining standards”  Underneath the benevolent language lies a simple truth: They’re destabilising the platform while claiming to save it.    7. What Healthy Communities Should Do  ✔ Build transparent communication channels  No one person should own a forum or discourse pipeline.  ✔ Require accountability for moderators and gatekeepers  No “lone sheriff” dynamic.  ✔ Encourage dissent and pluralism  Authoritarian personalities collapse when exposed to sunlight.  ✔ Track decisions in public  Narcissistic manipulators thrive in private backchannels.  ✔ Strengthen governance  Rigid structures prevent rogue actors from hijacking the narrative.    8. Final Thought  If a single individual can destabilise a global platform, that platform has a governance vulnerability — not a personality problem. Bad-faith actors exploit systemic weaknesses. Communities can outgrow them by building systems where no one person — however loud or well-funded — can hijack the future.

# 1. The Rise of the *Platform Gatekeeper*

Some individuals rise to positions of **informal authority** — moderators, community “thought leaders,” or forum gatekeepers.\
They’re not elected, not accountable, but wield enormous symbolic power.

A typical pattern:

- They dominate discussion spaces.

- They position themselves as “the only reasonable voice.”

- They decide who is allowed in or out of technical conversations.

- They portray dissent as dangerous or uninformed.

This creates a **chilling effect** where real experts withdraw, leaving the gatekeeper with even more influence.

---

# 2. VC-Funded Influence

In modern tech ecosystems, venture money doesn’t just buy shares — it buys **control of the narrative**.

Bad-faith actors sometimes benefit from:

- VC backing that expects them to **shape discourse in ways beneficial to investors**

- incentives to suppress or discredit competing projects

- pressure to steer the “public conversation” toward investor-aligned outcomes

This is not speculation — it’s an established pattern across multiple industries.

---

# 3. The Narcissist’s Playbook: Destabilise to Control

When someone has a narcissistic drive for dominance, giving them a platform creates predictable outcomes:

### ✔ Constant conflict creation

They manufacture drama, crises, and moral panics to stay at the center of attention.

### ✔ “Divide and rule” tactics

Pitting contributors against each other, whisper campaigns, and selective misrepresentation.

### ✔ Rewriting the narrative

They present themselves as the hero fighting corruption, incompetence, or imaginary enemies.

### ✔ Silencing via ridicule or moralising

Anyone who challenges them becomes a target — framed as unstable, malicious, or uninformed.

These tactics erode a community’s psychological resilience and make people dependent on the gatekeeper for “interpreting” events.

---

# 4. How They Undermine a Global Platform

Bad-faith actors are most dangerous when they **insert themselves at structural choke points**, such as:

- developer forums

- governance discussion boards

- technical proposal review channels

- user support and onboarding spaces

From there, they can:

- sabotage discussions,

- distort technical facts,

- stall consensus,

- mislead newcomers,

- and create reputational firestorms that harm the entire ecosystem.

A single manipulator can do incalculable damage.

---

# 5. How You Spot This Behaviour Early

Look out for these **red flags**:

### 🚩 Over-inflated sense of importance (“I speak for the whole community”)

### 🚩 Constant personal attacks disguised as “concern” or “critique”

### 🚩 Attempts to get people fired, banned, or discredited

### 🚩 Aggression toward contributors who won’t “kiss the ring”

### 🚩 Gatekeeping access to leadership or decision-makers

### 🚩 Reflexive dismissal of any viewpoint outside their control

### 🚩 Dependence on drama, conflict, and public spectacle

These are **not disagreements**, they are patterns of abuse.

---

# 6. Why Communities Fall for It

Because manipulative control masquerades as:

- “quality control”

- “protecting the brand”

- “guarding the ecosystem”

- “keeping out scammers”

- “maintaining standards”

Underneath the benevolent language lies a simple truth:\
**They’re destabilising the platform while claiming to save it.**

---

# 7. What Healthy Communities Should Do

### ✔ Build transparent communication channels

No one person should own a forum or discourse pipeline.

### ✔ Require accountability for moderators and gatekeepers

No “lone sheriff” dynamic.

### ✔ Encourage dissent and pluralism

Authoritarian personalities collapse when exposed to sunlight.

### ✔ Track decisions in public

Narcissistic manipulators thrive in private backchannels.

### ✔ Strengthen governance

Rigid structures prevent rogue actors from hijacking the narrative.

---

# 8. Final Thought

If a single individual can destabilise a global platform, that platform has **a governance vulnerability** — not a personality problem.\
Bad-faith actors exploit systemic weaknesses.\
Communities can outgrow them by building systems where no one person — however loud or well-funded — can hijack the future.

Wenzel Bartlett is paid to destabilize the IC