The paper reads well for the part about the history of Holochain development, mission, values, etc. But unfortunatly, I cannot understand how Holo Ventures escapes the centralization slipery slope that constitutes the curnel of the paper. It still comes accross as a tangential economic centralization potential, even though Holochain allows the parallel evolution of p2p economics. The Venture is itself a traditional centralized entity. I'm not saying that there is no place for traditional firms in the Holochain ecosystem. We strongly advocate for traditional organizational forms within the OVN model, that serve peripheral roles, as interfaces beyween the p2p economy and the traditional economy, a critical function for transitioning from one economy to the other. The important term there is "peripheral". Holo Ventures positions itself in this paper as core, alkng with the Holochain Foundation, Holo, Moss and Unit. It also has "Holo" in its name. We strongly advise against using the name Sensorica for any Custodian or Exchange Firm that serves the Open Value Network (traditional forms, interfaces) preciselly to avoid even the perception of centrality, and to make it easy to cut the links to these organizations in case they stop serving the network. I'm convinced that Holo Ventures has an important role to play. I'm not satisfied about how it is positioned to play this role and the narrative (this paper) created around it is confusing, so say the least. There are genuine models that avoid centralization at the economic layer. We've been working on one and we've chosen Holochain to build the infrastructure. That's the part that is missing from this paper. Acknowledging these models would make this paper more coherent, because the claim of uncapturability would hold up to the economic and even social and cultural layers. Ending with a "don't be evil" promisse by a traditional centralized orgabization is not the same as demonstrating an uncapturable economic layer.