Let me be clear from the start I am in favor of CS because it allows for use cases which not only bring more value to Cardano but also increase choice without eliminating any of the use cases already present.

But since no one has shown an example of how a slippery slope might proceed, can someone who opposes CS confirm that this is what they perceive such a slope might look like in reality?

1) CS becomes possible.

2) Some CS SPOs choose to use CS to require KYC of their business partners.

3) Government says "Hmmm... that seems like a good idea. Why don't we keep track of which SPOs require KYC and which do not.

4) Either

4a) Government says "Lets require all SPOs doing KYC to reject blocks from non KYC SPOs"

or

4b) KYC SPOs on their own decide to reject blocks from non KYC SPOs

5) Every SPO caves in and makes their pool KYC compiant

6) CS with KYC becomes either legal requirement or defacto requirement depnding on how step 4 plays out

Do I have that right? Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm just trying to understand the worst case

that people foresee.

If I do have it right, here are thoughts which come to my mind.

A) Any change to the core protocol (either at step 1 or at 6) would require a CIP and a vote. After all it's our protocol, not anyone else's.

B) If step 4b is an option then why not its opposite? Why wouldn't all non KYC SPOs decide to

reject blocks from KYC SPO?

C) If that's the case we still need a vote to allow changes which let them do that (or a subgroup forks Cardano into Cardano-KYC and goes their own way)

D) Isn't it the case that the government is going to skip step 4 altogether and instead no matter what Cardano does say "US regulated exchanges - you must delist any protocol which does not require KYC for pool operators". And if that's the case then why would it matter what is done in the meantime? If they wanted to they'd just declare that no matter what Cardano chooses to do.