Urbit is totally new to me, but from what I understand, the hierarchical identity layout and restricted address space are instant red flags for any distributed system. Oh, and the founders assert ownership over a non-trivial block of addresses.
Looking in from the outside, this looks like a fairly transparent attempt at bootstrapping a fiefdom: Create a type of digital "property", artificially restrict supply, reserve a huge chunk for yourself, and hope it becomes popular (making you "digital rich" and "digital powerful").
The funny thing is that, after dismissing criticism based on the creator and his politics, you just made a technical criticism that is basically reaches the exact same co conclusions about its intent and effects as are frequently made by those reasoning from the author's publicly stated political views (including those directly attached to Urbit docs before those were cleansed to make the product more commercially viable.)
Which is not to say you are wrong to prefer technical criticism, only that in this case the telegraphed political intent seems to match precisely the technical criticism.
Not speaking for the parent comment, but maybe the two aren't so inseparable after all. I would rather not immediately dismiss this project, since there are multiple contributors to it and it seems cruel to bash their hard work just because of Yarvin's presence. However, it seems like there definitely is a similarity between the product of the man and his ideology- especially the same inscrutable, esoteric, unconventional nature.
Is that really so surprising? The same biases and assumptions that influence our software must surely influence our politics. It's all systems design, after all.
