Most people would be happy to have World Wide Web creator Sir Tim Berners-Lees wealth, which is reportedly someplace between $10 million and $60 million.
Yet, Berners-Lees net worth pales into insignificance against that of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who last week became the first soul ever to be worth more than $200 billion.
Theres someaffair wrong with this picture. The discoverer of an data system that changed the world has attained from it a tiny sliver no more than 0.03% of that which has flowed to mortal who controls one of that systems 2 billion websites. Amazon.com has delivered Bezos a fortune that exceeds the GDP of 159 countries and is 3.3 million multiplication more than the U.S. median menag income.
Many Americans will view Bezos Amazon, whose $1.73 trillion market capitalisation makes it the second-most valuable corporation in the world, as a symbolisation of the U.S. economys success. The same people think likewise about the U.S. roots of the four other companies in the worlds top five: Apple, which last calendar month became the first company to surpass a rating of $2 trillion and is now at $2.1 trillion; Microsoft ($1.71 trillion); Google owner Alphabet ($1.1 trillion); and Facebook ($835 billion.)
I argue the opposite: These laughably large numbers are evidence of a deep problem with the American economy.
This is not the argument of a socialist, as I have somemultiplication been incorrectly pictured by people who hear me say such affairs. I thoroughly believe in a free free enterprise in which entrepreneurs are incentivized through profits to improve and grow their businesses.
Its just that theres no way a single soul or company can accumulate such a big amount of money, relative thereto of everyone else, without operative a competition-killing monopoly, without acting as a rent-quest ostiar of others capacity to generate income and innovate.
This is the erosive nature of the centralized platforms the net has spawned, a situation that gives Berners-Lee such angst that hes now quest to tame the beast he created. With network soulal effects to their advantage, these behemoths have a data-monopolizing capacity that lets them control and quash competition. And their algorithms have accumulated such a deep cognition of user behavior that they can bend us to their will. Its a power as great or more than that of governments, which is why they represent as big a threat to the free market as excessive regulation.
A solution consist a new breed of blockchain-powered Web 3.0 communication hypothesis communications protocols. These will give users control over their data and enable them to join localised communities and marketplaces to share content and products without middlemen. These models could break the back of the net platforms bye as users can be convertd to transmigrate away from them.
Still, even if these newcomers are successful, the Bezos lessons should be heeded. Power bases forming in the blockchain ecosystem around whales resemble those of the centralized net, where a capacity to set the rules of the game are unconditional in few. The crypto community should welcome innovative governance solutions that push back against that unfairness and foster broader distributions of power.
Limiting the spoils of growth
Monopolies harm an economy for various reasons. In the trust-busting era of President Theodore Roosevelt, the concern was that an epilepsia minor epilepsy of competition authorised companies to impose above-market prices on consumers. But they also constrain innovation, creating an chance cost for society. If better alternatives to the status quo arent brought to market, productiveness stagnates.
Capital markets perpetuate this problem. Investors favor the big guys witness the investment adviser mantra of just buy FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google) departure their competitors with comparatively more dear capital, which only makes the challenge of surpassing the platforms even bigger.
Their advantage is braced by legal ambiguity. Antitrust laws fixate on the prices paid by consumers, but as the American Economic Liberties Project notes in a piece career Amazon a 21st century ostiar, the consumer harm done by the e-commerce giant tends to be cloaked or hard to calculate. The reports authors say regulators should instead be look how it manipulates everyone suppliers, possibly competitive startups and customers by placing them into a position of dependency, so exploiting that dependency to leverage itself into powerful positions in new markets.
Its not clear, though, that the solution lies with government.
Washington could, for example, break up Amazon, Facebook et al. But whats to stop each of the component parts obtaining their own ostiar powers? Alternatively, it could regulate the platforms as utilities. But do we really want Uncle Sam regulation censoring? an information platform? Or it could subsidize promising startups aiming to beat the platforms at their game. But even if a rival can garner the network soulal effects necessary to overcome barriers to entry, their own shareholders will at last pressure them into exploitation the same consumptive methods.
Web 3.0 to the rescue?
This is where crypto-based solutions hold promise. In Web 3.0, user networks exist on top of a localised communication hypothesis communications protocol that no single party controls.
Web 3.0 startups must still convert users to transmigrate from a big, verified network to a small, unproved one, but growing concerns about privacy, censorship and fraught battles over disinformation, fake news and toxicant behavior could encourage them to do so. And recent progress in the development of Web 3.0s underlying infrastructure offers hope that ostiar-bypassing net applications are on the horizon.
Interoperability communication hypothesis communications protocols such as Cosmos and Polkadot, which allow digital plus exchanges crosswise blockchains, have reached key development and funding milestones in recent calendar months. Decentralized storage and hosting solutions such as Sia and Filecoin are garnering both user and investor interest. A host of self-sovereign digital identity providers are starting to offer users a way to keep their data private and interact autonomously with each other without relying on the platforms identity direction systems. And all this is happening during an explosion of innovation in localised finance (DeFi), which could enable drum electric sander integration of payments and finance in a Web 3.0 environment.
Crypto unfairness
To be clear, blockchains are no panacea against monopoly.
For one, crypto has its own inequality issue. Because of sharp price appreciation and the front-loaded issue schedules built into many cryptocurrency communication hypothesis communications protocols, a small number of early adopters have deeply more wealth than the vast majority of later participants. (One analysis of Bitcoins Gini wealth coefficient, a common measure of wealth inequality, put it in a range of 0.88 to 0.98 between 2012 and 2019, higher than any country in the world.)
One could argue its the remotion of gatekeeping intermediaries, not inequality itself, that matters. But the reality is that whales with large token holdings have oversize influence over blockchain governance systems and can often dictate terms in their favor. This is especially so in proof-of-stake consensus systems and its acting call at vote on interest rates, collateral rules and other parameters attached to localised finance (DeFi) communication hypothesis communications protocols.
Its also in question to bitcoin. Wealth is necessary to build the big mining farms required to consistently win block rewards and although core development work is, by definition, a not-for-profit activity, the most prolific contributors theretos code are funded by flush bitcoiners. While their financiers largesse is even in terms of protective a public good, their direct line to the engineers affords them real influence over communication hypothesis communications protocol development.
Still, blockchain-based communication hypothesis communications protocols create opportunities for founders to experiment with governance to get around these problems, which, encouragingly, is happening in DeFi. (See the item on fair launches below.)
Well ne'er attain utopia, but at to the last degree in crypto theres an innovation-driven approach to determination a path thereto.
Denominators matter
At a glance, the first chart below from DeFi Pulse, which tracks the value of all crypto pluss secured as collateral in Ethereums DeFi ecosystem, suggests the spectacular bubble of August power have met its end in early September.
And yes, the first week of September is a cueer that what goes up can come down. Still, its worth look the charts further below the first one to cue ourselves that discussions of crypto value tend to be distorted by the denominator of measured historical performance. Any assessment of the U.S. dollar (USD) value of medium of exchange system imagination blessed with in DeFi collateral contracts is duty-bound to the value of the dollar itself, which will vary against the key crypto denominators according to a vast array of factors that have very little to do with DeFi.
The charts below measure the amount of actual a) ether or b) bitcoin thats secured up in DeFi contracts.
The good news for DeFi believers is that even with the damage that this weeks sell-off has done to the dollar value of bitcoin and ether, the crypto communitys internal bets on the DeFi system continued to rise, albeit at a slower rate. The unanswered question is, how truly independent of the fiat world is this system? Will the past weeks slide in the value of ether and bitcoin versus the dollar start to impact how holders of those cryptocurrencies think of their yield-earning opportunities in DeFi? Or are there now greater incentives to cash out back into dollars? Time will tell.
Global town hall
FAIR LAUNCH = FREE LUNCH?
One of the hottest of the many hot new speculative projects to flow through the booming DeFi universe has been that of yearn.finance, whose YFI token soared by more than 700% in August to entertain a $1 billion market capitalisation. It was more than the price gain that got people excited. Its that the founder, Andre Cronje, launched the project without retaining any of the tokens for himself beforehand, carrying out whats being called a fair launch. Unlike the leadership of many projects who typically set aside around 20% of tokens to compensate founders and developers for the time and effort put into building the project, Cronje and his team had to commit their own capital and time their bets right to ride the speculative boom in YFI.One reason why this is appealing is that it creates a framework for more just governance of the tokens, whose conditions are determined by token holders according to the communication hypothesis communications protocols consensus-based vote system. Typically, the largest holders can sway votes, which means token-holding founders can set the game up in their favor. Ian Lee, IDEO CoLab Ventures managing director, says such models pose a threat to risk capital managers like himself. If projects can launch without preceding equity or token exposure for either founders or funders, whats in it for VCs? he asked in a blog post.
Who would fund such projects? People who simply want to see new business innovations sleep in the wild and are prepared to bet further on them after theyre built. Well, Lee some of his team members appear to be among those types of people, as they quickly rolled out a new construct note: not an entity in and of itself called fair launch capital. Described as a community imagination providing free access to capital for new Fair Launch networks and projects, the group is receiving an impossible amount of interest and support from the crypto community, he said.
Meanwhile, Yearn itself fostered a new construct that could further unlock capital for such launches: a delegated funding DAO vaults, which in essence use the power of connections and relationships, on with some fancy insurance-like mechanisms, to provide unsecured lending for developers of such projects. A lot of bets will go wrong, no doubt. But this rather experimentation with new forms of governance, risk direction and credit are what make the DeFi movement so interesting.
PEOPLES PRIVACY
. When it comes to China, the only affair to be said with any certainty is that mainstream Western portrayals will employ sweeping generalizations and miss a more nuanced reality. In a well-written take on Beijings astonishingly robust efforts to boost data privacy standards, MIT Technology Review author Karen Hao describes one such situation.While the clause lays out the familiar story of the expansion of state surveillance under President Xi Jinping and the growing use of social score metrics, it also reveals how a pro-privacy activism among Chinese citizens is prompting some aggressive data protection responses from top Chinese officials, including measures that constrain the actions of provincial government agencies. With the country now implementing a legal model quite similar thereto of Europes General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), tensions with the national governments own data collection scheme seem likely to arise. It clay to be seen what all this means for Chinas implementation of its Digital Currency Electronics payments system, which Western critics often describe in ominous terms as a privacy-destroying panopticon.
As Hao writes, Chinas privacy protection effort raises a question: Can a system endure with strong protections for consumer privacy, but nearly none against government snooping? To be sure, that system, otherwise best-known as the Chinese Communist Party, has managed to accommodate many such contradictions in the past. But the substance here is that we should not underestimate the voice of the Chinese people or, more precisely, of its Netizens, as Chinas net activists have become best-known.
THIS MEANS WAR.
Those of us who write about how governments, companies and localised communities will contend to define the digital money of the future often use the term currency war to describe the competition for peoples medium of exchange system trust that looms on the horizon. The winner is the one that attracts the most demand and, therefore, most likely, rises the highest in value. But in traditional foreign exchange markets, the construct applies more to central Sir Joseph Banks exploitation their powers of intervention and medium of exchange system insurance to competitively drive down the value of their national currencies in other words, reduce demand for them so as to boost exports and make imports more dear.With the dollar falling consistently due the Federal Reserves aggressive COVID-19 medium of exchange system easing measures, concerns about such a war arising were given a boost when European Central Banks Chief Economist Philip Lane made what some labeled as a verbal intervention even as a rising euro was approaching the psychologically significant level of $1.20. As Bloomberg Opinion authors Mark Gilbert and Marcus Ashworth warn in response to Lanes remarks, A full-blown currency war could distract insurance makers from their key task of repair the post-pandemic global economy.
All Lane said was, The euro-dollar rate does matter because it feeds into our global and European forecasts and that serially does feed into our medium of exchange system insurance setting. Thats a pretty indisputable point. Yet, the euro fell instantly after hed born the comment. The remarks did break with international communication hypothesis communications protocol, by which central bankers are supposed to resist mentioning their currencies and instead center on domestic economic conditions, even when those conditions are the result of exchange rate changes. But it was few declaration of war. Such is the super-sensitivity around the value of money right now that modest shifts in language can send markets into a tizz. Theres an end-game feeling to this.
Relevant reads
The Crypto-Dollar Surge and the American Opportunity. Dont fear stablecoins, embrace them. Thats CoinDesk columnist Nic Carters substance to U.S. insurancemakers. Yes, encouraging the use of these dollar-denominated digital bearer pluss would entail giving au courant the international surveillance that bank-based dollar surveillance grants the U.S., but the free flow of a new form of money with its roots in the U.S. will at last serve U.S. interests, Carter argues. The alternative is to allow people suffering under the regimes of outcast states like Venezuela to transmigrate to slipperier alternatives.
3 Reasons Bitcoin Just Tanked Below $11K for First Time in a Month. Bitcoins price has been on a rollercoaster ride this past week. After BTC in shor got above the psychologically important $12,000 mark in the New York afternoon Wednesday, serial waves of insurance " title="marketing" target="_blank">marketing that began in Asian hours Thursday had pushed it inside few dollars of $10,000 just 24 hours later. Although it bounced off that level, the largest cryptocurrency was still troubled as of this writing Friday. Why the sell-off mid-week? Brad Keoun offers three plausible explanations.
For DeFi to Grow, CeFi Must Embrace It. For all the excitement around the DeFi phenomenon, it is still a minuscule part of even the cryptocurrency market. To make it more mainstream, CoinDesk contributor William Mougayer argues the centralized exchanges that dominate the larger, more liquid form of crypto investment should engage with DeFi communication hypothesis communications protocols. How? By listing their tokens, building new, easier-to-understand products and creating user-friendly marketing information to bring them into the mainstream.
Brazils Central Bank Says Nation Might Be Ready for a Digital Currency by 2022. Brazil is the latest country to say its creating a central bank digital currency. In fact, it could have one by 2022, says the countrys central bank chief, Roberto Campos Neto. Danny Nelson reports.
0 Comments