• Part 1 – The “Before”
  • 1. Utilitarian Lens — Greatest Good / Least Harm
  • 2. Rights-Based Lens — Protecting People’s Rights
  • 3. Justice/Fairness Lens — Equality & Consistency
  • 4. Virtue Ethics Lens — Honesty, Humility, Stewardship
• Part 2 – The “After”
  • 1. Utilitarian Lens
  • 2. Rights-Based Lens
  • 3. Justice/Fairness Lens
  • 4. Virtue Ethics Lens
• Part 3 – My Stance

Andrew G. Stantdon - Aug. 17, 2025

I’ve been reflecting deeply on CW3 — what it is today, and what it could become.

To help me articulate this clearly, I’ve collaborated with “Dr. C” (ChatGPT), an AI I regularly work with, to organize and refine these thoughts.

What follows is an analysis of CW3 through four ethical frameworks: Utilitarian, Rights-Based, Justice/Fairness, and Virtue Ethics. I’ve structured it in two phases — Before and After — and will close with my personal stance.

§Part 1 – The “Before”

CW3 as it currently operates:

§1. Utilitarian Lens — Greatest Good / Least Harm

• Benefit: CW3 fosters connection among Kingdom-minded people interested in technology and finance.
• Harm: By promoting or allowing promotion of certain altcoins/tokens without full risk disclosure, members may be exposed to unnecessary financial and legal harm.
• Net: The potential harm to individuals (loss of funds, false confidence) may outweigh the group’s networking benefits.

§2. Rights-Based Lens — Protecting People’s Rights

• Members have the right to make informed choices about their financial decisions.
• Currently, not all project risks or regulatory statuses are clearly communicated, which can impair informed consent.
• The right to clear, transparent information is not consistently upheld.

§3. Justice/Fairness Lens — Equality & Consistency

• Some projects get amplified because of relationships or excitement, not because they’ve met a fair and transparent vetting standard.
• This creates inconsistency — members may feel certain assets are “endorsed” without equal scrutiny.

§4. Virtue Ethics Lens — Honesty, Humility, Stewardship

• CW3 has many well-meaning people, but enthusiasm for “projects” can overshadow virtues like truthfulness and sober judgment.
• The promotion of speculative assets without clear caveats can drift away from a posture of stewardship over others’ well-being.

§Part 2 – The “After”

CW3 reimagined through each framework:

§1. Utilitarian Lens

• Projects discussed are vetted for both potential impact and potential harm.
• Clear disclaimers are given when risk is high, allowing members to benefit without undue loss.

§2. Rights-Based Lens

• Every financial or technical opportunity shared includes transparent disclosures: risks, regulatory status, and whether it’s a security, commodity, or other asset class.
• Members can make truly informed decisions.

§3. Justice/Fairness Lens

• Equal scrutiny and transparency applied to all projects before they’re actively promoted in the group.
• Avoiding favoritism ensures no project gains an unfair halo effect simply from association.

§4. Virtue Ethics Lens

• Group culture prizes honesty over hype, stewardship over speculation.
• “We do not promote what we wouldn’t be comfortable recommending to a close friend or family member” becomes a guiding principle.

§Part 3 – My Stance

If CW3 moved toward the After scenario — where the four ethical frameworks are actively integrated — I would feel far more comfortable rejoining. This isn’t about perfection, but about clear guardrails that keep the group aligned with both Kingdom values and practical wisdom.

For those who want more background on why I draw such strong distinctions between different types of digital assets, I’ve written this detailed article:

Bitcoin: Property, Not a Security — Why the Distinction Matters (full version)

Written by Andrew G. Stanton in collaboration with “Dr. C” (ChatGPT).