[statstutor]

I understand "credibly neutral" here to mean the idea that you appear neutral, whether or not you are actually neutral. Compare with: plausible deniability.

The goal of credible neutrality is to convince people that you have acted fairly and gain political acceptance [Vitalik does this by appealing to the standards for property ownership under capitalism]; the goal is not to act fairly [as Vitalik softly admits, the true goal is to do whatever is necessary to support (his) wealth accumulation].

I would much rather credible neutrality did not exist as a justification for particular actions, and that it faced automatic criticism.

Give Bob 1000 coins and admit that you did so, rather than set up a system of rules which is designed for Bob to receive 1000 coins. The use of passive voice is an indicator that someone has disguised their responsibility.