I hope and trust you are joking there.
The technique of us refining system requirements between us is standard formal systems Engineering conceptual design.
We are doing it by peer review.
Folk decide for themselves what they want, they/we are the primary stakeholders, all are free to input.
I am just an Engineer using my skills and experience to try to provide options from my point of view.
Your concerns are recorded in the system requirements, and traced to the parts of the system which meets them. I believe I have logically countered your concerns, and defended the concept proposed.
You are free to create a separate system, I would provide my concerns to you if you wish, and I would be amongst the first to cheer your success, because the right system will be good news for everyone.
There is no competition to deliver the ultimate better-than-free system.
The crowd will evaluate, as always.
In truth, we are about to see an explosion of systems in response to this crisis.
I think we should do all we can to encourage that, because the current system is clearly broken beyond all repair.
To replace it, we need to be able to see what is wrong with it, and it looks pretty clear to many of us; it enabled greed, colonialism, slavery, racism, gender inequality, and in fact, just about every division between humans that ever existed.
I trust you can see it now too.
Those are the things we should be questioning.
We should not be feeding on one another as a species.
Any system that might enable that in the future would be unfit for requirements.
Sorry if I go a little quieter on this conversation as from now, I believe we may have achieved as much as can be hoped from it.
For your own benefit, revealing more of your identity, thus providing more accountability for your arguments would give us more insurance of your credibility.
“Learning” from an anonymous source sounds a little dodgy, would you agree?