> Historical precedent (both recent and not) shows that concentrating wealth and then giving those wealthy few an inordinate amount of political power does not end well for those disenfranchised by this system.

Historical precedent isn't a rational basis for argument. You don't make stock picks based on precedent. You need to actually examine the causes that result in outcomes to evaluate whether the same outcome would happen again. That said, I have seen good arguments for why weighting votes based on tax contribution would have bad outcomes so I don't agree with him.

> It is not reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt on the basis of Lutke and his ilk maybe being benevolent dictators if given largely unfettered access to the levers of power.

I have no reason to assume Lutke is a bad actor but maybe you know something I don't. Has he done anything to harm anybody or any group of people? Him being rich doesn't make him automatically a bad or suspicious person. There are many rich people who do good things with their wealth and free time.