🤷 Opinions Cyril Gilson

Trust Arms Race in the Age of Cryptography: Max Borders Interview

Opinions
Future can be viewed as a positive-sum game if brain creativity is accommodated by smart contracts and greed is leveraged by prosocial ends: Max Borders
Trust Arms Race in the Age of Cryptography: Max Borders Interview

Cyril Gilson, Evgeny Konstantinov.

Futurist Max Borders is author of The Social Singularity: A Decentralist Manifesto. He is also Executive Director of Social Evolution, a non-profit dedicated to solving social problems through innovation, a widely published writer and co-founder of the event experience Voice & Exit.

UToday discusses with Max Borders the future of communities in the age of the coming technological singularity, a new big thing after the attention economy, the failures and hopes of the US as a project, decentralization, FAGMA and the crypto market as a non-zero sum game.

UToday: Could trust economy be the next big thing, after the attention economy?

Max Borders: That is the optimistic vision of The Social Singularity, I think, though I did not put it specifically in those terms. If we can program incentive systems and networks that give rise to trust, people will almost always prefer those and will migrate to them where possible. I don’t want to overstate my optimism, however.

This is a long game. Big companies and big governments have lots of sticks and carrots at their disposal. And they will use them.

Many people have a deep inner urge not only to believe in the promises of central authority but to submit to it. So whatever the alternatives are, they must be robust and far more attractive than the status-quo system. Migrating between systems must be a simple, low-cost proposition on the part of the defectors or those who are ready to move out onto the frontiers of the network age.

💼 Related Article
Trust in Crypto Space and the Next Tackle
🔥 Hot
3 months 3 weeks
256
Trust in Crypto Space and the Next Tackle

Incentivizing trust

UToday:  Do you think trust can be monopolized by the Leviathan (state/corporations) as it almost happened with attention?

Max Borders: Certainly not. Trust is more or less the product of repeated positive interaction among people. In the former Soviet bloc, people developed clever and systematic ways to evade the state’s panopticon, relying heavily on bonds of trust that amounted to winks, nods and robust black markets. Paradoxically, people in the former Soviet bloc also developed cheater's mores, but I’ll leave that for now. But people imagine they can trust central authorities, and some generally regard the state as generally trustworthy, as they are under the spell of thinking that angels are meant to be in power.

So, in the age of cryptography and connection, I worry there will be a trust arms race between central hierarchies and prosocial networks. But I hope trustful networks will prevail over attempts to create third-party leviathans that promise trust.

The hypothesis is that if positive interactions are rewarded and negative interactions are not, then trust will be more likely to be a happy by-product. But that hypothesis could be wrong.

UToday: Game theory says that trust (as in trust between people) can only evolve in a non-zero sum game. Do you agree?

Max Borders: This strikes me as at least intuitive (unless the game is a negative sum of course). It’s certainly a good heuristic for designing incentive systems. But those systems will compete in a kind of evolutionary fitness landscape, which we hope will generate the most prosocial systems while the anti-social systems die off.

That said, I don’t want to give the impression that all systems should be “trustless” in the way that some distributed ledgers are designed to disintermediate. I think some systems can and should hypermediate, which means that they involve more participants with different perspectives and subjective points-of-view.

💼 Related Article
The Human Soul of Technologically Advanced Web 3.0
🔥 Hot
3 months 2 weeks
256
The Human Soul of Technologically Advanced Web 3.0

Subversive innovation USA

UToday: The US pretty much started as a utopia attempt (and a voice & exit thing). What place do you think the US has in this subversive innovation that's currently happening?

Max Borders: The US project, a constitutional order, was a valuable and instructive one. But it is essentially dead. The processes of institutional corruption, like power in collusion with money (obscured as it is by the spectacle of electoral politics), has created a system that basically trundles along but has lost its way. So it’s time for an upgrade.

That upgrade won’t happen by the reflection of legislators in deliberative bodies. It will happen by entrepreneurs and innovators offering alternatives that are just too tempting to pass up.

Such is not to say that there are no subversive innovators here in the US. We are everywhere. It is rather to say that the US’s social operating system is getting buggy. And that is true for most of the Westphalian nation states whose people are temporarily trapped in old nationalisms, and whose leaders aren’t coming to grips with the decentralization that is now unfolding before our very eyes. The days of central power are numbered. The forces of change can only be stopped if the world’s leaders agree to be way more totalitarian than they are. But even totalitarianism can only work for a time.

UToday: Is voting based on Blockchain (as in presidential elections) outside of the scope of change?

Max Borders: If it’s not, it should be. Blockchain-based voting rather misses the point of what’s possible with these new systems. And to be fair, I don’t care a jot about voting in the sense of majoritarian rule. The worship of democracy that is so pronounced in Western nations like the US strikes me as a failure of imagination coupled with an implicit bias to vote oneself goodies or to express one’s values without having to do the hard work. The hard work is to build participatory communities that attract and retain members.

My hypothesis is that this new market in governance forms will challenge all of these older ideas about the relationship between the government and the governed- not to mention they’ll challenge the idea that jurisdictions should be attached to terra firma.

Let us, therefore, pluck our governance from the cloud. Let a thousand experiments bloom. Then let 80 percent of those experiments die or evolve- over and over, ceaselessly. There will be no end of history. There will only be new governance systems that emerge victorious for a time until something better comes along- where “better” is in the eye of the beholder.

UToday:  During your 2017 Burning Man speech, you said: "Bitcoiners are extremely ultra left-brained." Could you expand on this?

Max Borders: ”Left-brained” is shorthand for logical, rational- with a tendency to view the world through a systems lens. Many of the early adopters of Bitcoin were geeks and coders, for example. This is a good thing on the net.

We need armies of Vitaliks rewriting humanity’s source codes.

But the next phase will be how to accommodate the creatives, the artists, and those with insights that are not always translatable into stark on/off binary thinking exemplified by smart contracts.

UToday: Any ideas on how right brain creativity can work with Blockchain algorithms? Would you say that Steemit does it in a way?

Max Borders: This is a hard question, particularly for me because I am not a software developer. Tentatively, I would suggest that it depends on which level of description you’re talking about. So on the one hand, you might get very left-brained systems at the protocol level, but these systems can give rise to forms of interaction that are a lot fuzzier and distinctively human.

On the other hand, it’s a bigger challenge to think about how one builds fuzziness in at the protocol level. Such questions are admittedly beyond my ability to answer. However, I think creatives and coders will discover new ways to interact in complementary ways that will generate amazing opportunities for human flourishing.

Steemit is an interesting early effort, but I think there is a lot more to come. A simple current example might be improved UX/UI, guided by more intuitive minds. So much of what we have to deal with now is neither simple nor terribly secure (such as keeping up with goddamn private keys, or a thousand passwords).

I would like to see society’s most vulnerable people using cryptocurrencies, for example. But that will happen only to the extent that we can make interfaces for human beings instead of just Vulcans.

💼 Related Article
From You Commodity to U°Community: How Crypto Community Leads the Charge
🔥 Hot
3 months 3 weeks
256
From You Commodity to U°Community: How Crypto Community Leads the Charge

Prosocial greed

UToday:  The crypto market has some characteristics of a non-zero sum game. With more money flowing into crypto, more people are going to get rich. So greed, in a way, is fuelling the move to decentralization. Do you agree?

Max Borders: Yes. Greed, or at least self-interest, will almost always be the primary driver of progress. My organization, Social Evolution, is currently working on a system of mutual aid that attempts to harnesses both self-interest and altruism within a single system. I hope this will become a “killer app” because we are both greedy and altruistic creatures by shades. But I’m under no illusions: you have to get the incentives right. The very idea of incentives imbeds the idea of our basic self-interest. It’s in our bones as a species. Greed cannot be jettisoned. It must be leveraged. But hopefully, we can leverage it to prosocial ends.

💼 Related Article
Сreative Сommunities in Space and Crypto Give Shape to Future Social System
🔥 Hot
3 months 2 weeks
256
Сreative Сommunities in Space and Crypto Give Shape to Future Social System

FAGMA

UToday: But generally, isn’t it too much hype about decentralization? Is it becoming a myth, with FAGMA (Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon) putting whole industries out of business?

Max Borders: We shall see. FAGMA has massive network effects, which will be hard to overcome. But they’ll only be able to stick around if they are able to match the powerful incentives these new systems will soon offer potential defectors. Whether or not decentralization is or is not a myth will turn on whether the innovations A) reduce transition costs and B) offer benefits to the degree that the value of the old systems can be replaced as people defect.

To be honest, I am currently a slave to FAGMA. And I derive a lot of value from those relationships. I wrote The Social Singularity using a Mac, on Google docs, promoted on Facebook and sold via Amazon. I guess that makes me a shitty decentralist, despite having written the book.

That fact notwithstanding, we’re still in the DNA and single-cell stages of what will become a Great Barrier Reef of technological change. When the developers get the products right, we might just get to a tipping point.

AI beating humanity?

UToday:  Could AIs beat the humanity in decentralization, growing their own Mycelial Network?

Max Borders: Egad! It makes my head hurt to consider this possibility. But it is a possibility. My hope is that we are able in some sense to merge with AI before it comes to regard us as a competitor or a cancer. I hope it thinks of us as a companion or a continuation of its being. Can AI evolve empathy? Love? Will it feel at all? Or will it evolve into something more insidious and unstoppable?

My hope is that as we upgrade our collective intelligence (CI) we will co-evolve with AI and form common “mycelial” networks that give rise to something far greater than we can currently imagine.

And I gather that such wild predictions loop back to the first question above about life on earth viewed as a positive-sum game. We really don’t have a choice but to be optimistic. Because CI and AI are going to push us into a future that is not really of our choosing. And as CI and AI weave together, we will be as demigods operating in the form of expanded consciousness and intelligence that is right now the stuff of dreams.

💼 Related Article
Future of State: From Asgardia to AI-Ruled Space Cities
🔥 Hot
3 months 3 weeks
256
Future of State: From Asgardia to AI-Ruled Space Cities

🤷 Opinions
views
👓 Recommended articles
🤷 Opinions Alexander Goborov

EOS vs. Ethereum: The Bitter Rivalry Re-Examined

Opinions
EOS and Ethereum are continuously at loggerheads: here we attempt to deduce why
EOS vs. Ethereum: The Bitter Rivalry Re-Examined

Ethereum and EOS just don’t seem to be on the same page and agree on most things crypto, apart from unanimously declaring that the Blockchain itself is our virtual future. Of late, there have been scandals and accusations, but where is this all coming from? Is there more that meets the eye? Turns out yes, there is.

A Bit of History

Ethereum was established in 2015 by the Russian-Canadian programmer Vitalik Buterin. The company very quickly ended up among the market leaders, becoming the second most valuable currency by market cap with around 22 billion USD. EOS got officially launched much more recently, only this year, but the company is already the fifth in the world by market cap with around 5 billion USD.

Importantly, one of EOS’s founders, Daniel Larimer (the other being Brendan Blumer of Block.one), already possessed a substantial amount of crypto experience as he had previously founded both the Steem Blockchain, along with its native coin of the same name, and Steemit, the corresponding social networking platform, back in 2016.

💼 Related Article
October’s Official Site Traffic List: Steemit is Leading
🔥 Hot
1 month 1 week
256
October’s Official Site Traffic List: Steemit is Leading

ERC-20 Tokens

What some may not remember is that EOS actually started out as an Ethereum Blockchain-based ERC-20 token company. Similarly to how, say, Electrify.Asia are conducting their business at present, EOS used Ethereum—having gathered around one billion USD from token sales—to gain the necessary momentum before they launched their very own EOS Blockchain.

💼 Related Article
October's Top 10 List of Token Holders on Ethereum: Electrify.Asia is Leading
🔥 Hot
1 month 2 weeks
256
October's Top 10 List of Token Holders on Ethereum: Electrify.Asia is Leading

This means two things. One is that Ethereum was used as a crypto springboard of a sort whose services were let go of when they became redundant. And two, Larimer and Blumer were savvy or even devious enough to use not the Steem Blockchain, ready at hand, but the more powerful one by Ethereum, though it belonged to a different camp. Today, EOS has both its own Blockchain platform / EOS altcoin and its own working EOSIO token with a similar purpose to ERC-20. So yes, it is possible that Ethereum views EOS as a younger neighbor from across the street who has now suddenly started playing on the same team with the big kids… and winning, too.

The Punches Being Thrown

While both networks are solid, both have their drawbacks of course. The EOS team has been fairly vocal in pointing out or at least hinting at Ethereum’s technological problems and problems-to-be. For instance, traffic congestion for Ethereum is not that unusual with some reports of longer confirmation times having been publicly voiced already. Another one of Ethereum’s problems, which is, in fact, the cause of the first one, is scalability: because of how the platform is modelled, expanding it is bound to create all sorts of jams and delays, and, crucially, not let the network grow properly beyond a certain point. This dilemma is said to be noticeably less pronounced on the EOS Blockchain because of how the latter one is built.

Also, unlike Ethereum that charges its participants fees in the form of “gas”, EOS charges its users nothing whatever. Instead, the network asks for some power and bandwidth in exchange, which are proportional to the resources required to undertake that particular action on the platform. This was also publicly noted by those who side with EOS.

It didn’t take much time for the Ethereum team to return the favor which culminated in a serious accusation this past summer from Ethereum’s DApp developers, among them Justo. Conveniently enough, this accusation also single-handedly explained why Ethereum’s network was getting congested and gas prices were jumping up and down:

“Myself, and many other high profile Ethereum application developers made a prediction that EOS would, in all likelihood, attempt to attack the Ethereum network gas prices to validate the launch of their platform.”

And further, after it had allegedly happened, in response to how one can be sure it was indeed EOS:

“EOS has been attacking the network on and off every time something they do doesn’t run properly… It started one month running up to the mainnet release. It was predictable and very clearly orchestrated… Follow the wallets. If you don’t think EOS is doing it, then who has 2 million dollars a day to attack Ethereum, and also owns EOS tokens?”

Daniel Larimer’s cold and succinct response can be seen below:

Larimer Message

The Most Recent Scandal

Earlier this week, Ethereum went a step further and plainly accused EOS of not being a Blockchain company altogether, a claim of immodest proportions. A research study conducted by the Ethereum-funded company ConsenSys and its partner Whiteblock concluded that EOS had been built using a model which is profoundly different from the universal standards of today’s Blockchain technology. Whiteblock’s CTO (Chief Technology Officer), Zak Cole, who is also one of the published report’s authors, proclaimed:

“EOS token and RAM market is essentially a cloud service where the network provides promises for computational resources in a black box for users to access via credits. There is no mechanism for accountability due to the lack of transparency on what block producers are able to create in terms of computational power.”

This has resulted in a heated discussion on Reddit with many users taking a stand in support of either of the two companies.

💼 Related Article
EOS Isn’t Blockchain, Merely a Cloud Service: Yay or Nay?
🔥 Hot
1 month 1 week
256
EOS Isn’t Blockchain, Merely a Cloud Service: Yay or Nay?

Epilogue

The rivalry now seems like the result of bad blood right from the very beginning. Predicting what is going to happen next is difficult, but most likely things are only going to get more wound up. The market is ultra competitive and billions of dollars are up for grabs. On the plus side, perhaps a by-product of this rather nasty exchange will bring the users better and cheaper technology; after all, as the late Henry Ford once said, “competition is the keen cutting edge of business, always shaving away at costs”.

🤷 Opinions
views
👓 Recommended articles
🤷 Opinions Katya Michaels

EOS Security Vulnerabilities: David Moss of Block.one Responds to 360 Report

Opinions
The claims made by Qihoo 360’s Vulcan team regarding EOS security may be exaggerated and unsupported
EOS Security Vulnerabilities: David Moss of Block.one Responds to 360 Report

The opinions expressed in this article are strictly David Moss’s own and not to be interpreted as speaking on the behalf of Block.one or any other entity.

As the planned June release of EOSIO 1.0 approaches, expectations and tensions are heating up.

Most recently, Monday’s news of possible security vulnerabilities detected by Chinese Internet security giant Qihoo 360 elicited strong responses from EOS supporters and opponents alike.

According to the Weibo post published by Qihoo 360 on Monday, high-risk security vulnerabilities in the EOS platform could enable remote attacks through the deployment of arbitrary code and insertion of malicious smart contracts into new blocks.

Such a security breach may give the attacker full control of the network’s nodes, affecting thousands of computers and accounts.

💼 Related Article
Past ICO Review: EOS, an ICO Success Story
🔥 Hot
8 months
256
Past ICO Review: EOS, an ICO Success Story

The discovery of the security issues was made by Qihoo 360’s Vulcan team, and the wording of the report seems to suggest close collaboration by the Chinese security company with EOS to resolve these issues ahead of the EOSIO launch, but this may not be the case.

David Moss, senior vice president of Tech Operations at Block.one, the open source software publisher responsible for the EOSIO launch, provided comment to CryptoComes on the Vulcan findings

“The allegations were greatly exaggerated by Vulcan 360, as was their involvement with Block.one. They are only to want publicity for themselves and to create the impression they are working with Block.one. They are not. They also have no documentation to back up any claim they made.”

As always, investors and developers are responsible for doing due diligence when it comes to platform security.

The crypto media environment is as susceptible as mainstream media, if not more, to conflicting reports, sensationalism and news cycles used as marketing tools.

The release of EOSIO software has been one of the most eagerly expected events in the crypto community and the next few weeks are certain to put increased pressure on the EOS team to provide commentary on arising questions.

🤷 Opinions
views
👓 Recommended articles
Alexander Goborov

Today’s Biggest Crypto Winners by Name

Nakamoto tops the crypto list with $6 billion
Today’s Biggest Crypto Winners by Name

Last week, we looked at The Biggest Crypto Owners in the World by Nation. It turns out that while Turkey’s 18% of the population reportedly own cryptocurrency, it is the United States with its 8% of the population that actually has the largest number of cryptocurrency owners, around 26 million people. That, coupled together with another fact about the US having the most computational power, miners, and Bitcoin nodes, puts the United States far ahead of its crypto rivals.

Today, we bring you the Biggest Crypto Winners by Name, a fresh list that has been put together with an aggregation technique of analyzing data from various online sources. Unsurprisingly, this list is also dominated by the Americans. Almost entirely. But not quite…

 the Biggest Crypto Winners by Name

In 7th place is Charlie Shrem (USA), an interesting character to say the least, one of the biggest Bitcoin pioneers who was at one point under criminal investigation for money laundering with a subsequent two-year prison sentence. Clearly, that did not curb the man’s crypto enthusiasm, and he is now back with a hefty $450 million, according to many sources.

In 6th place is the founder of Digital Currency Group and owner of Genesis, Barry Silbert (USA), with an estimated net worth of over $500 million. In 2014, he bought 48 000 Bitcoins in an auction held by US Marshals due to the shutting down of Silk Road; as a result, he has since been able to reap tremendous financial benefits from Bitcoin’s climb to the top.

In 5th place are the famous Winklevoss Twins (USA) with their supposed combined wealth of $600 million. While Cameron and Tyler were unsuccessful in gaining control of Facebook in the well-publicized legal battle against Mark Zuckerberg, as they were unsuccessful in creating a Bitcoin Exchange Traded Fund (ETF), they did invest religiously in Bitcoin back in 2013. Since then, the crypto exchange rate has skyrocketed and grown more than 20 times the original price making their initial investment very peachy indeed. Well, when you are twins, doubling your money may be somewhat easier.

In 4th place is Michael Novogratz (USA), a hedge fund manager and trader who began investing in cryptocurrencies back in 2013 and four years later created a $500 million crypto fund with over a quarter of that sum coming from his own pocket. Having involved himself with most major cryptocurrencies, most notably Bitcoin and Ethereum, Novogratz continued to buy and sell the various crypto units, quickly becoming a major crypto player on the market. His net worth is now estimated to be over $900 million.

In 3rd place is Tim Draper (USA), a venture capitalist and the founder of the investment firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Initially making his fortune through viral marketing and associated investments in such big brands as Skype, Hotmail, and Yahoo, the native Californian purchased 30 000 Bitcoins in the 2014 public auction (the very same one that gave way to Barry Silbert’s vigorous accumulation of wealth). All these well-executed efforts combined have put Draper’s wealth at over $1 billion!

In 2nd place*, we have both Ross Ulbricht (USA) and America’s very own Federal Bureau of Investigation. It must be noted that this place is entirely hypothetical: Ross Ulbricht’s funds have been confiscated. He is currently serving a double-life sentence for being the mastermind behind Silk Road and popularizing Bitcoin usage on his platform for the purposes of decentralized trade. This may sound innocent enough, but the punchline is that his infamous creation, Silk Road, traded and exchanged mainly illegal products, such as illicit substances and firearms, all in the depths of the infamous Dark Web.

In 2013, Ulbricht was arrested and 9 months later charged with money laundering, computer hacking, and drug trafficking. The FBI seized Ulbricht’s Bitcoins and passed them onto the US Marshals, who held an auction and sold them all off to those willing to pay, among them Silbert and Draper (who clearly did the wise thing by buying into them). Ulbricht’s Bitcoins which ended up in the FBI’s hands along with his other funds would have been now worth approximately $2 billion, which, in theory, puts both Ulbricht and simultaneously (though fleetingly) the FBI at our very respectable number 2.

In 1st place is the crypto household name Satoshi Nakamoto. As a matter of fact, no one knows, or at least no one admits to know, who Nakamoto really is. All that’s known is that this name is a pseudonym used by some man or woman, or possibly even a group of people, who created a pioneering mathematical code which resulted in the first ever cryptocurrency unit. The only other fact that’s known is that Nakamoto owns around 1 million Bitcoins, which roughly translates to the staggering $6 billion or more! That’s one filthy rich Japanese mystery at our number 1.

 the Biggest Crypto Winners

Interestingly, if Nakamoto were to actually sell off his Bitcoins, this would cause panic in the crypto market and consequently drive the price of Bitcoin down, which would leave Nakamoto with a lot less than Nakamoto has in assets right now. Talking about being left holding the crypto bag!

We hope you enjoyed our list. Stay tuned for more.

views
👓 Recommended articles
🤷 Opinions Alexander Goborov

Blockchain's Most Successful Women: The Lucky Seven List

Opinions
Today we bring you the names of Blockchain’s top females who have become major contributors to the global crypto movement
Blockchain's Most Successful Women: The Lucky Seven List

Today’s world of centralized finance and politics is often associated with a patriarchal structure, which is, it is said, dominated by cunning ambitious men, both old and young. Since Blockchain is the decentralized, mirrored version of this system supposedly striving for equality of opportunity, we thought it would be fun to look at some of the most successful women working in Blockchain today. Here’s our list of the seven ladies who were lucky, talented, and persevering enough to have made it big, listed alphabetically:

Athey, Susan (Ripple)

Athey

With a BA in economics, mathematics, and computer science from Duke University and a PhD in economics from Stanford, Susan Athey is probably the most rigorously trained and academically acclaimed of all of the females on this list. Having previously taught at MIT and Stanford, she worked as an economic consultant for Microsoft for a few years before joining Ripple in 2013. She has been serving on Ripple’s board of directors ever since contributing to the company’s economic strategy and educating the public on the use of the Blockchain technology and DLT.  

Baldet, Amber (Clovyr)

Baldet

A former executive director of JP Morgan’s Blockchain Center of Excellence, which “leads efforts for applications of distributed ledger technology (DLT) within JP Morgan”, Amber Baldet is now the cofounder and current CEO of the recently established platform Clovyr. According to Amber, the company specializes in developing a “framework and ecosystem of applications and services” on the Blockchain. An avid believer in this technology, she is considered to be an influential figure in the community, concurrently also serving on the board of the Zcash Foundation.

Boring, Perianne (Digital Chamber of Commerce)

Boring

Perianne Boring is the president and founder of Digital Chamber of Commerce, which was established back in 2014. The center claims to be no less than “the world's largest trade association representing the blockchain technology”, thereby putting Perianne at the very forefront of the industry. A graduate of the University of Florida, she was a legislative analyst in the US House of Representatives, as well as a financial services journalist for RT America before eventually establishing her own firm and claiming yet more limelight. Today, she is considered to be a major voice in the field, not only among women but also men.

Haun, Kathryn (Coinbase)

Haun

Kathryn Haun is serving on the board of directors of Coinbase, a well-known digital currency exchange platform based in San Francisco. Prized for her legal experience and expertise, the Stanford graduate previously worked as a federal prosecutor with the US Department of Justice. While there, she was involved in such high profile cases as fraud with extortion among federal agents in the Silk Road investigation, as well Bank Secrecy Act violations in the US Department of the Treasury vs. Ripple Labs. Now, Kathryn is using her impressive background to ensure that Coindesk operates well within the US government’s regulations and compliance guidelines.

Kim, Joyce (Stellar)

Kim

Joyce Kim is arguably one of the most accomplished crypto women today. Being the co-founder of Stellar (together with Jed McCaleb), the world’s sixth biggest crypto coin by market cap, Joyce resigned as the company’s executive director two years ago, though she still maintains close ties with the company. Having previously given speeches at the UN about migration and sustainable development, she embarked on a mission to tackle income inequality in some of the less privileged places across the globe, including Asia and Africa. In an effort to further this cause and attempt to solve real world issues through innovation, last year Joyce became a managing partner at SparkChain Capital, an early stage venture capital fund.

Reckhow, Carolyn (Casa)

Reckhow

Carolyn Reckhow is the head of operations and client services at Casa, a recently established company that specializes in multisig storage of digital currencies. She is also the former director of operations at Lubin’s ConsenSys, a company that develops software for Ethereum’s decentralized network, the very same one that earlier this month famously accused EOS of not being a Blockchain company. Carolyn comes from a social sciences background and refers to herself as a “macro social worker for the Internet”. With Casa’s ambitions growing by the day, Carolyn is sure to follow with her hands-on approach and finely honed communication skills.

Vranova, Alena (Trezor)

Vranova

After working for ten years in the insurance sector in her native Czech Republic, Alena Vranova later served as the CEO of Satoshi Labs and became famous in the crypto community for being the founder of the much sought-after Trezor wallet. Earlier this fall, she became the global director of development at Casa, the same recently established company that Carolyn Reckhow is now also working for. At present, Alena is using her strategic know-how and close ties with Satoshi Labs to build a client base comprised of the wealthiest crypto owners around, promising them the best possible hardware protection for their digital assets.   

💼 Related Article
Women of Crypto at the Crypto Invest Summit: Separate but Hopeful
🔥 Hot
1 month 2 weeks
256
Women of Crypto at the Crypto Invest Summit: Separate but Hopeful

🤷 Opinions
views
👓 Recommended articles
🤷 Opinions Darryn Pollock

Blockchain’s Transparency Could Put a Clear Sheen on Dirty Politics

Opinions
The murky world of politics has often turned citizens off with its hidden agendas and subterfuge, but the transparency of Blockchain could clear things up
Blockchain’s Transparency Could Put a Clear Sheen on Dirty Politics

It sounds ironic that something like Bitcoin, with its underlying Blockchain technology, could be a powerful tool in the effort to clean up dirty politics. For so long, Bitcoin has been classed as a tool of the dark web with its anonymity, but, on the other side of things, its transparency could help ‘drain the swamp.’

There is a big drive for use-cases of Blockchain technology at the moment, and one area that has been strongly put forward is politics, not only in terms of accountability and transparency, but even to its core and the voting system.

Blockchain technology has many attributes that are missing in today’s political realms. It is easy for politicians to lie and manipulate their way through dodgy dealings, and even fix elections. But a brush of Blockchain transparency could change the face of global leadership.

Trump’s Stormy foray

There is an ongoing feud between President Donald Trump and a porn star, Stormy Daniels, who alleges that the US leader paid her for sex. The battle burns strong as evidence is brought forward and denied on a constant loop.

An attorney for Daniels has now said he has additional evidence linking a Russian businessman to Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. But this evidence will likely be again rubbished or denied. However, that would be a lot harder to do had there been an infrastructure of Blockchain technology where transactions are mathematically proven, an undeniable.

Money is the driving force of politics, and the mere fact that a Blockchain set up would allow anyone to have open and transparent access to a candidate, senator, or even president’s account would mean that accountability would be through the roof, while anonymity would still be able to protect privacy.

Getting in at the grassroots

Away from the top down politics, at the grassroots level of election and democracy, transparency is a key facet of free and fair elections, yet many elections are easily fixed. The method of paper ballots is woefully outdated and easily manipulated.

Blockchain again springs to mind as an answer and an upgrade to the process, there is a technology waiting to bring a much more efficient and fairer edge to voting, which in turn will lead to the right people coming into the job, to begin with.

Sierra Leone had an instance where a Swiss company ran a Blockchain election parallel to their regular one to show that it can be done, faster, and more efficiently, but also with full transparency.

While there may not be anything like this happening yet, there is enough evidence to suggest that maybe not the politicians per say, but the electoral committees and the independent voting organizations see a large opportunity to clean up the voting system.

It can only be a positive knock on effect as if the grassroots are made clear and transparent, and the dirty politics is taken out from the bottom, the overall effect will be a much clearer and cleaner global political system that brings back accountability.

🤷 Opinions
views
👓 Recommended articles