 All right, so we're going to start on time, I guess. And feel free to, because this is very long talk, like two hours, I'm not going to do this alone. So you're going to cross-erase the talk. Please scan the QR code here, or just, if you are on a laptop or something, go to slido.com and enter without the hash sign on 101.01, which is very easy to remember. And so, either by scanning the QR code or going to slido.com 101.01, you'll get into this anonymous chatroom. Feel free just to start asking me questions like now, and like each other's questions. So the idea is that the more people like the question, the higher the question will go on the list. And so I'll know that how many people here are interested in one particular aspect of the talk, so that I can just dive into it. And of course, feel free to raise your hand at any given time and ask me questions. So these two hours will be entirely interactive. And if I can't get to all your questions by the end of two hours, apologies in advance. But I think we'll try to just talk about all the different aspects of theoretical exchange based on what people are interested in. And so I'll just start then. And I'll just flip back to the slido questions every couple of slides. So my name is Audrey Tang. My day job is Taiwan's digital minister. But I'm on vacation right now because it's a national vacation day. It's Taiwan's national day. And so I'm wearing another hat as a board member to Radical Exchange, which is a foundation, as well as a movement. And so Radical Exchange in a nutshell is the idea to use mechanisms designed to find ways for people to cooperate across difference. Sounds simple, right? In any case, the Radical Exchange Foundation is a registrar in New York and is responsible for just advocating the various ideas that starts from the book, Radical Markets, but now has grown into all sorts of different things. And we send speakers to speak at academic and business conferences, and DEF CON, obviously. And also, if you see this logo, RXC, we're looking for designers that can do better logo. But that's our logo for the time being. And so this is our standard slide set. But I'll just skip that. If you want, you can look it up online. And I'll just talk some of my personal anecdotes and stories about how I encountered this RXC idea and how I'm deploying in my day job as well as my non-day job activities. So in my day job, which is Ministry of Cabinet, we're often faced with this when emerging technologies come. There's various different organizations with different agenda. And so whenever there's a new technology, maybe there will be people who care more about the economic aspect, the development of the economy. But there will be also people who care more about the social justice or sustainability of the environment and so on. And Korea Public Service, which is this part, absorb all the tension of all those different organizers and try not to break the social trust. But they remain largely anonymous and had to talk in a kind of one-to-one fashion to all those different organizers. But now because of there's a new technology, well, not really new, but a new-ish technology called the hashtag, and that becomes kind of the nightmare of public service in liberal democracies everywhere. Because with the hashtag, you know, hashtag me too, hashtag climate strike, hashtag anything, Defconn5, you can just organize random people out of the internet and try to push for a particular agenda with no obvious person leading it. And so this traditional way of institution, which you just meet with one representative of one particular movement and try to strike a balance no longer works because there may be emerging ideas and emerging organizations everywhere. And so the idea of institution standing in the progress of innovation become kind of very trendy. And so which is why we're now rethinking of how to use institutions to amplify technologies and use technologies also to amplify the efficiency of institutions. Instead of trying to work kind of in a zero-sum game, we're designing a new set of institutions. In the works of Buckminster Fuller, the idea when you're looking at an old broken institution is not to fight it, it's not to try to fix it, and so on. It's instead just to try to find something new that makes the old one obsolete. And that's exactly what I'm doing in my day job. And so it's very much within the spirit of radical exchange to just find institutions that reinforce the institution with new technologies that makes people behave in a more pro-social manner. So I'll just use one example. There's this institution, which is my working condition called radical transparency. When I became the additional minister three years ago, I made a deal with the premier saying that all the meetings, even internal meetings, that I'm a chair must be published entirely online as a transcript, two weeks after the fact, and all the lobbies, all the media, everybody who just meet me must also agree to this radical transparency idea. And so if you're interested, the protocol is written in visit.pd.tw, which spells out exactly how the transcript is to be published. But it's then coupled with the institution of physical space called the Social Innovation Lab in Taiwan. And this is where everybody can meet me on Wednesdays, they're, say, office hour. So it could be booked online, or you can just walk in. And every Wednesday from 10 AM to 10 PM, you can just book 40 minutes of my time and talk about anything. But the only condition, as I said, is that it will be uploaded to this website called Say It. So if you Google for Say It, you will easily find that after I become the additional minister, I've talked with 4,000 people over 1,000 occasions and I've talked with 4,000 people over 1,200,000 speeches. And so before, when I talk with lobbyists and media, without this radical transparency protocol, then people are inclined to talk about things that do their private interest. People are inclined to lobby in their favor, often at a detriment of the entire society or environmental benefit, of the public benefit. But because I made that into my working condition, that everybody must agree to a public benefit. If you look at a transcript of people coming to my office hour, actually, everybody talks about public benefit. Everybody talks about the global goals. Everybody talks about sustainable development. And the reason is that people know that their ideas will become public, part of the commons. And they must also relinquish copyright for everybody else to pick up on those ideas. And so just this very simple flip in the institutional default of open, transparent by default changes people's behavior. And people are much more inclined to just reveal what their ideas have to do to encourage other people's idea instead of doing a zero-sum game, trying to lobby things into their favor. And so this is one of the examples of how institution technology together can change people's relations so that people who work against each other can then be moved to work together. And so RXC is very interesting in that we put artists up front. So it's a convention of people who have a different imagination of life, of society. So it's a convention of people who have a different imagination of life, of society. As well as entrepreneurs, activists, thinkers, and so on. And so the idea is just to have this safe space where people can propose all sort of very weird ideas. And this, for example, in my office hour, there's just random people who just put those, I don't know, self-driving vehicles. There are vehicles that are robots and if you hop on one and tell you where you want to go, it will drive you there. But there are tricycles and they're very slow and so they come to me and say, you know, Ministry would like to just ride on one of our tricycles even though it bumps into walls all the time. And I'm like, what? But then they assured me, they're from MIT Media Lab, they assured me that they're really slow so if it bumps into walls nobody gets hurt, which is good, I guess. But the idea of showing this as a social object in an open space and welcoming artists and entrepreneurs I remember when we were on this open hackathon where we showed this self-driving vehicles and trying to work out, because it's open stores and open hardware, how to fork it to various different uses. There's just an elderly couple that went from the nearby flower market and they just bought some pots of flowers and they look very artistic. And so, you know, maybe old hippies, with all due respect. And then they just look into these self-driving vehicles and they're like, what are they doing with those shopping carts? And we tried to explain that these are not really shopping carts, but they think they look just like shopping carts in the supermarket. And so, they're like, this must be shopping carts and what are they doing with them. And so, we have to explain things in terms of shopping carts and say, okay, these shopping carts follow you around if you wanted to. And so, they just put some flowers into the shopping cart and ask us, if we can reprogram the shopping cart fleet so that they can follow them around in the flower market. And obviously, it's not programmed to do that, it's programmed to be a taxi service essentially, but it's open source. So, theoretically, there's no limitation of not doing that, right? So, quite a few entrepreneurs around the time thought it may actually be a good idea to just repurpose them as the way the elderly couple imagined it, but they would have to make changes. For example, instead of one red eye, they have to make two eyes that can follow each other around so people know where the fleet is forming and which person they are looking to. And they have also to be able to understand human emotions and also emit nonverbal communication cues. So, it's like code domestication of robots versus humans, but because this is a safe space for all the different people to share their aspirations and their imaginations, people are free to work it and move it whichever way. And so, form a what we call a social norm. And the social norm is toward an open and efficient and more egalitarian society, because it's not about people in their multimedia lab dictating what people in Taipei have in relation to this new technologies, but rather people looking at those semi-done parts and figure out what they want from the technology and have the technologists respond to it. And so, in governance parlance what we call a norm first design where we just form out the social norms and by having people exposed to new technologies and new ideas and from the norms the market decides they want to build a market around it and then from the market maybe we get into code into architecture that ensures the market's policies and this is of course a symbiotic relationship and finally after these two figure things out finally we make a law about it and this is much better than the usual top-down way where people first make a law about it often by lawmakers that has no first-hand experience whatsoever with technology and then constrain the limit of technologies that constrain the markets that constrain the social norm. So we would argue that this kind of way is much better if we involve artists and entrepreneurs as the first batch of people to experiment with new idea and that too is why radical exchange convenes regularly people from different disciplines and encourage effective partnerships and so our first Taipei meet-up was in July I think and was Vitalik and also Jennifer and also somebody from HTC I think selling this very secure enclave phone thing and so with all due respect and so this is the place where we first announced our first application of quadratic voting which you may have heard about in the previous session in the Taiwan's administration in the presidential hackathon and around the same time Santiago Siri and friends are also I working with the Colorado budgeting initiative so we probably announced around the same week actually so okay maybe by a few days but I mean it's a different branch we're in the administrative branch and they're in the legislative and so this is amongst the first way that quadratic voting is used empirically as a voting method and I think it's great that we set a very good norm, very good example by having the two projects all open source and also we published anonymous data for people to analyze and so I think that's a pretty good contribution and so before I jump in and talk about presidential hackathon and application of quadratic voting I'd like to just remind people who joined kind of in the middle that this is an interactive talk and you're highly encouraged to scan this QR code on the upper left corner or go to slido.com and enter 10101 so that you can ask me questions and please remember to like each other's questions so that I would know that how many people like me to talk about any people ideas and so and there's quite a few follow-up questions I love those so I just answered them before delving into a presidential hackathon so one anonymous person would like to know how do I know open by default is causing behavior change rather than selection bias well it's a great question so the idea very simply put is that I had people sending me long emails that argue for their private benefit and ask for a time for a meeting but I said you know if you are going to meet me you have to have the entire transcript published online and so when they actually do meet me many people would start prefacing you know I understand that we are on the record so today I'm not going to talk about things that I mentioned during the email I'm instead talking about a public good application of my idea and things like that and so there's so many ideas like that around and even with David Poof who was at the time the public policy person for Uber and of course he asked for a meeting like one on one meeting but I said you know everything will be published and so this is a very telling mark where he ended the conversation saying I do think there are more details that I can work out I'll ask the local team to prepare materials and send them over to you and I'm like sure just note everything you send my way will be made public and so and so I mean you can actually look into each and every word that we said during the conversation starting from the doorbell and the kind of arguments that he makes which is about I don't know environmental sustainability you know carbon neutrality and right management and things like that and so I think that the great thing about this is that we're making arguments not just for the sake of convincing each other or about furthering our interest but because this is entirely public and we know that people will translate all of this into Mandarin and people can actually quote all of us and not out of context because by definition each one of this if you click show context it would just show the conversation context so without any risk of getting quoted out of context we're much more likely to further our arguments in a way that convince the wider public rather than just the person across the table so you can just see this behavioural change once people start donning on them that they're not here to convince me but rather amplify or channel through me their arguments to reach into what we call a rough consensus that is to say people can live with those ideas with the entirety of the society so I think this is not selection bias because it's the same individual it's just in a different social setting you're gradually starting seeing that they realize it's donning on them that this is on the record and the entire behaviour pattern just start adapting start changing and things like that so yeah I think it's my first unexperienced that people do change in their strategies when they understand that they're on this kind of open conversation meeting so three people would like to know is there a date for the next year Radical Exchange conference there is a location I think the date is still being finalized but we know that it will be in Sao Paulo and we don't know the exact date so just I don't know subscribe to Radical Exchange on Twitter and the date will be announced in due time what else would you consider making your emails transparent as well so this is obviously not talking about email addresses right because my email address is entirely public I just look it up on Twitter so my email transactions entirely transparent it's actually what I did in the first place when I was announced that I would become the digital minister I use a now defunct platform called Wise Like where people can ask me any questions but I only answer in public and if people ask me questions on private email I just anonymize their identity but still respond to public and so this has been a kind of default way of my conversations so far and because of this people learned that they don't have to just keep asking me the same questions because it's now very easy to just go to the forum of my office which is called public digital innovation space and just go through the various questions that people have asked me before and have a kind of standardized answers and it's also very convenient for me because then I don't have to just come up with fresh answers every time when people ask me questions over private email I'll just do a full tech search under a question this is like a knowledge base and then I'll just paste them the URL to the previous person that asked the same question and they can of course ask a deeper question than the factual question they don't have to repeat twice and this is not just something that I do by myself actually the entirety of the Taiwan cabinet or the 32 ministries all learn this kind of if you ask me in private I'm going to answer in public art and so I think I wouldn't say that all the incoming emails must be made by default mostly because unlike the visit protocol there's no way for people to signify that they already understand for repercussion that the email to this address would be made public but I think it's always a good idea if the answers are made public or at least the answers that doesn't quote I don't know if they ask me an email and mention some anecdotal thing about a third party person and they may not actually give the clearance of that person's information be made public this way so I usually just anonymize those names out but I still give out a full answer in the public conversation so I think that address at least parts of this answer so three people would like to know there's my radical transparency coming to cost does it take more time or effort to live your life that way are there tools to help us do the same so there's a great question well two questions but anyway so the first thing is that it actually saves a lot of time and as I mentioned all the different ministries in Taiwan have learned this art of just publishing this is e-petition this is regulatory pre-announcement and this is the budget so all the 2000 or so governmental budgets I haven't done a google translate but it doesn't really matter and people who are Japanese can read the kanji anyway but in in any case the idea is that all the different ministers they have their KPIs their projects and things like that and we can very easily see where the budget went as well as what kind of projects people are most interested in so this long-term care this is sanitation this is social housing and things like that so for long-term care people can easily say that this is something that they care the most about and this is our quarterly report so every quarter they report everything the KPIs whatever they have achieved and things like that and just last month actually we agreed to publish to our academic partners everybody can ask for a full copy of the structured data of all the procurement associated with all government projects with all those 2000 long-term projects topics and so the entire details of procurement data is also open government data and so people can very freely ask questions here and normally they will ask questions in a way that is private that is to say they just write to the ministry but if they answer them one by one nobody knows that there's already 40 people asking the same questions but now because they learn to communicate through this participation platform people can very easily ask questions and the Ministry of Health and Welfare for example would just say hey for this quarter we detected that these are the trending questions and we made these changes because of your input and things like that and if people keep asking the same questions just like me they would just paste a URL to this conversation board so that they make each government project a social object so that people can very easily find it on search engine but also start asking deeper questions instead of wasting people's time answering the same factual questions when it's time so basically it is a lot of work initially but more ties I think it saves a lot of work because people would just find out the answers to their factual questions and start collaborating and even bring out their creative solutions which then would further save time five people have a suggestion please turn off the lights so people can see the text here if there's no five people saying keep on the light please let's just turn off the light thank you so let's maybe get back to the presidential hackathon and quadratic voting which is actually the premier RxE product and so the question here is why is the Taiwan governments in particular so forward-looking is adoption of cutting edge concept of radical markets that's a really good question there's two answers the first one is that the Taiwan presidential election is actually a relatively recent thing our first presidential election is in 1996 and so when the first presidential election happens there is already a web when people start doing democracy and design for democracy we are informed to not only by representative democracy which we have zero years of proud legacy of republican tradition because that was a dictatorship of martial law right before of representative democracy and when people started voting directly for president there is already this full wealth of the war eye web the internet engineering task force the internet way of governance already serving as an example so instead of like in many older republics where people specialize in internet technologies went to one school and people who specialize in public administration and democracy went to another school we are really the first generation that can do democracy and when we are doing democracy design we are exposed also to war web for the first time and so because of that I think it informed our imagination and you can more or less see the same dynamic pulling out in Estonia because they got their constitution after internet and so they don't have this proud legacy of paper trails to take care of they can just start inventing democracy using purely electronic means and so that's my first answer that explains why people are much more cutting edge in Taiwan because we don't have a legacy system in our democratic system to maintain and the second thing I think is also because in Taiwan we have broadband as human right if you don't have broadband as a human right it's very easy for the opposition party to say that if you roll out these radical ideas then people are going to be left out systemically but in Taiwan we say if you roll far away you are you may be in the south most Pacific island of the Marine National Park of Dongsha maybe the island of Taiping and you are guaranteed to still have 10 megabits per second if you are on the top most of Taiwan which is almost 4,000 meters high the Jade Mountain Yushan you are also guaranteed to have 10 megabits per second and so our indigenous rural remote areas broadband coverage is at 98% now and the remaining 2% are mostly in very high mountains and our minister of interior actually just said last month that he is very much willing to use helicopters to just build the 4G telecom towers to all the remaining mountains so our coverage would be at 100% and so this is very devout dedication to broadband as human right right and it's not just accessibility it's also very affordable so unlimited 4G connection anywhere in Taiwan is only 16 US dollars per month which is very affordable so you get people anyone really just primary schoolers becoming YouTubers because there's no additional cost of being a YouTuber everybody can participate in this live streaming technology and live streaming culture and so because of we have broadband as human right it was a very affordable price as well as the digital opportunities for people who cannot afford a new tablet they can lend one from the public library that's guaranteed to be manufactured in the previous 3 years so relatively new and we offered that for indigenous nations as well as well as schools so because of that there is really no opposition party that can say once you roll out this participation platform it's going to leave people behind because everybody is on the internet and so our participation platform which has just showed you the public budgeting and also a petition website currently has 10 million active users and considering Taiwan's population is 23 million that's already almost half of our population that can use the internet and so I think that's the second answer is that we not only start imagining democracy when the world web is already in place but also because we have dedicated budget on education and broadband as human rights so that we can just roll out these cutting edge technologies without any political pushback so I think that's the two question so presidential hackathon is one of our projects that incorporates quadratic voting in the administrative branch so hackathon everybody here knows what hackathon is we don't have to explain that but normally our hackathons in the open source community are maybe 2 days or 3 days but the presidential hackathon because presidential it's 3 months so it's a very very long marathon and so it's kind of a stretch on the word hackathon but the idea very simply put it's inspired by very similar ideas like the German prototype fund there's ideas like that over the place and we just improve on using quadratic voting and a different prize structure so anyone around the time of April can start proposing ideas that use data and technologies and innovation to make public sector work better and so one example from one of the five winning teams last year is the water saviors because they save water you see so this is the person from the Taiwan Water Corporation and they just using those listening devices to listen to the pipes that may or may not be leaking and so in a pilot area that they chose for presidential hackathon it used to take 2 months when the pipe starts leaking the plastic pipes and the time that it gets discovered that it's actually leaking and most of the time this repairs people just listen to the pipes that are not leaking and so it's not a very rewarding job and they have trouble recruiting young people obviously and so they went to the presidential hackathon saying maybe it's a better idea if I can develop a chatbot and the chatbot would look at the water pressure data, water flow data environmental data weather data whatever and then detect spikes in different water usage patterns and very easily let those repairs people see when they wake up that what are the three most likely leaking points near them so that they can devote their time to solving the leaking points which requires creativity instead of listening to places that's not leaking which doesn't require creativity and so we automate those using AI or as we like to call it assistive intelligence but the public sector people doesn't have the expertise in making such technologies and so through the presidential hackathon we basically coach them and pair them with the private sector technological experts and so we made a few weekends to contribute so it may or may not work but if it doesn't work there's no harm done and we also cover them with people in the social sector with people who understand how to communicate and how to design chatbots how to engage with the open source community the organizers that serve this kind of liaisons to people who have already solved some of that questions before not necessarily in this domain but they act as connectors and so we also ask all the sustainable development goals the SDGs and it's a very useful indexing device we don't have to explain a lot about the system we're working on we just say it solves SDG targets 6.4 and there's 169 targets and so in the form of target something that's something and once we say that everybody across the world knows we have a contribution to increase water use efficiency and ensure fresh water supplies and so they got a trophy and the people from New Zealand for example then invite them for another three months of co-creation all of this sounds pretty standard so what's special about the presidential hackathon well it's the trophy so the trophy looks something like this actually but with a stunt that is a projector okay so the idea simply put is that our president this is our president by the way Dr. Tsai Ing-wen see the presidential competition at her office the presidential office and give out five awards to five teams that's the team of the year and so the five teams receive no prize money whatsoever but they receive this trophy from the president which is a projector as I mentioned and if you turn it on it projects the image of the president handing the trophy to the team so it's very meta so and you can choose which part of the video you want to play and so on it's very cutting edge but for people in the private sector this may be just something that looks good on their portfolio resume but for people on the public sector this is a godsend because for people who pilot on a small area like the Jilong area that I explained most of the time they talk to their director general and their DG would say there's no budget to scale it out to the entire Taiwan but then they just turn on the projector and their director general say oh there's budget there's budget for it we'll make it into our annual budget and so if their minister says this requires cross ministry of coordination because the ministry of economy can't just take care of it alone we'll have to talk about the environmental protection agency we'll talk about the minister of interior it's too much of a hassle let's just scale down this project and just turn on the projector and summon the president and the minister will say oh tomorrow we'll just schedule a talk with another minister and so this works because this is essentially a token of presidential promise whatever they have prototype in the previous three months is guaranteed to be included into a national policy by within the next 12 months and so the president's office my office everybody's office do whatever we could for many of their teams we made new agencies we made new personnel we changed regulations around telemedicine for example and we allocate new national budget for it so whatever you do the Taiwan government is committed to make your idea a reality within the next 12 months so you can work on something new instead of trying to find out whether you how to scale it out or whether to scale it out so basically scaling to the scale of Taiwan is the reward of the presidential hackathon and so that is a very attractive reward structure so last year all the five teams got their ideas implemented as of this year so we're going a lot of street credibility and so this year there's a record number of teams participating and that creates a problem because it's very difficult actually once you have a whole palette of projects solving all those different sustainable development goals it's actually very difficult to judge which ones to make into top 20 and receive this because each one is solving obviously one important thing in the 17 sustainable goals but how do you weigh environmental projects versus social projects versus economical projects and the projects ever in between and the answer is that we can't the jury by definition cannot be an expert of all the 169 thing there's nobody on the planet that memorized all the entire project and it's an expert on each and every one of it so we have two crowdsourced and crowdsourced is usually on the platform of a voting system online and we of course has this platform already right the joint platform which as I mentioned have 10 million active users out of 23 million so that's a start but how do we make sure that when there's hundreds of teams the voting actually reflects what people feels about and the teams ideas that people can resonate with because if we don't design this right people are just going to be mobilized by their friend who are in the team and go to the website and vote all their votes on their single team without even glancing the other 100 or so projects and that's what usually happens if you run a voting system like that and so that's when quadratic voting enter the picture and basically helped create a much more nuanced and balanced team selection and so QV very simply put as implemented in the presidential hackathon is that everybody who log in to the participation platform gets 99 points and we chose 99 instead of 100 because we don't want people to go vote on a single project because as you can see if you really like I don't know if you really like reduce marine pollution and you vote for this team you vote for one vote and that's going to cost you one point if you vote for two votes actually it's going to cost you four points because it's quadratic and if you want to vote nine votes then that's 81 so by the time that you click in the interface to vote the ninth vote the system would tell you that you cannot vote the 10th vote and it would require 100 points but you only have 99 and so you still have what 18 left and because you have 18 left and you don't want to squander this vote and that's the core inside of RxC is that people don't want to squander the votes the points that they have people instinctively feel that they must find something else to vote on and so maybe you look around and say oh you want to train a machine learning model to do that that sounds like an interesting project and then you discover that with your 18 points you can only vote four votes because that's 16 points and you still have two points left and because people don't want to squander those two points they will look around and find other project which by the time they vote on the fourth project they will probably find something that is actually much more within their domain and so that's the project and maybe marine pollution is still important but maybe it's not as important as you know requiring 81 points so maybe they will just take a couple votes away so that they can vote on both of them using seven votes which is then 49 points each and that's still well within the quadratic voting budget and so this whole process of taking away some votes and taking some more all these activities we've published on github in anonymized fashion so that if people want to analyze how QV impacts people's interactions with those projects feel free to just analyze this but we are very happy about this as Jury because this then helped us to discover the various different projects that we don't have domain knowledge on but people nevertheless feel about it and then we discover it's really actually a pretty good idea and so this really covers a much broader ground than our jury of maybe a dozen people can and then it informs our next round of selection as well because then people who have participated are much more willing to contribute their expertise into trying to make this idea a reality because people feel generally that they've won because it's much more likely that some of your voted projects did make it to the top 20 or top 10 or top 5 so people feel much more identified and when we have a call to collaborators people who have voted even just one votes or two votes to a certain project is much more willing to join this collaborative partnership and so that's the basic idea of the quadratic voting as applied to presidential hackathon. So I know this question will come. So might as well to get it over with. So five people would like to know how do I feel about the minister in charge of IT in Japan. So I don't know the minister personally unfortunately that I've read many newspaper and Twitter comparisons mostly around age I think this is not really fair because first of all that in Taiwan the minister in charge of science and technology there's two ministers, minister of science and technology as well as the horizontal minister in charge of the board of science and technology and they're both my father's age or older than my father but we still maintain very good cross-generational solidarity working in the cabinet and so I'm the digital minister but I'm not the team minister. My work is mostly about digital transformation meaning that enabling new kind of institutional design powered by technologies but I don't work on for example the IT protocol myself that is the purview of the science and technology ministry and so basically I work on the application layer so to speak and not really the IT layer which requires a different kind of thinking I guess so and this is just a general observation in the cabinet we need people of both parts across different generations people who are more versed in the top down vertical notion of doing things and people like me who are much more versed in the horizontal leadership and if we don't have both roles in the cabinet it's very easy to further mechanism to start fossilizing even horizontal designs can fossilize really quickly but if you do the design in a way that is cross cutting that has most of the horizontal designs in place but also very good vertical command control structures it actually becomes a much more fluid design overall so I don't know how exactly the IT is being talked about in Japan but I have tried to work with the code for Japan I don't know whether anyone here is from code for Japan which is a community here that runs workshops with the local public service as well as people in the cabinet office about important aspects like how to enable teleworking while enabling that people to trust the cybersecurity involving teleworking as well as how to popularize the Japan system of electronic signature while making sure that people who love the seals can still get some cultural satisfaction by the use of maybe Bluetooth seal like devices or things like that and so just to find common values despite the different generations positions I think that is very important and so I don't know the administrator personally but I think it's rather unfortunate that there is kind of one individual versus one individual comparison because my work wouldn't be as effective if not for the administrators of my father's age that can actually deliver the implementation of those ideas in a very efficient as well as top-down manner so next question Hong Kong so 11 people would like to know in Hong Kong people are hiding personal information in order to avoid police censorship, does the radical transparency only work in certain condition this is a great question so I actually the radical transparency applies to the content that was set but there are arrangements where people really would like to choose a pseudonym and generally in my conversations as well as in the e-petition we do allow for pseudonyms of course there's risk of civil attack and everything so we really do have to make sure that you're a real person when you're making a petition for example it's verified using SMS and so on but on the other hand when presenting to the community you can choose a pseudonym so as to protect yourself now you would say the SMS is usually verified with ID that's true but you can also use a prepaid SIM card that is purchased on the grocery store so it would take actually a lot of effort to track it back you can have your friends buy it for example and so there is some leeway in not really going for real name but we also want to increase the cost of getting new identity on the petition platform otherwise people would just register 5000 emails and get every petition on the way and that of course wouldn't work as well so we chose the SIM card with pseudonym as kind of the compromise about it so yes I think the question is of course factually correct direct transparency works when everybody involves is comfortable with it and in different social configurations people's comfort level may be different but that's why Slido is great because on Slido people can choose pseudonyms can choose to be anonymous but people can also at any given time change to their real name or just raise your hand and identify and claim that question is something that you have asked and so this kind of gradual knob of anonymity, pseudonymity and real name identity is what we have always tried to design into our process so that people are not afraid of whistleblowing or starting a petition in a very unpopular position but at some time when the presidential hackathon for example many public servants roll into the presidential hackathon knowing that their director general is not approving of their idea but because we design such that they can work with their social sector friends just a random hacker from the open source community proposing that idea even when reading the project description we know it's somebody from the public service probably a section chief that have written the text but the proposal is somebody a random hacker from the open source community and section chief would say it addresses things pertaining to my purview so I would just collaborate with this outside hacker even though they wrote it themselves and in any case if it doesn't work over the course of three months then it doesn't work they stayed completely under the radar their director general doesn't even know that this idea is of that section chiefs but when one of their ideas actually become a winner of the presidential hackathon for example this particular one it's not until that they want the presidential trophy that the actual proposer came out and say hey I proposed this idea of using machine learning to parse through the prosecution of all the documents public prosecution documents of company that engage in illicit financial flows and trading with shell companies as well as all the public information disclosed by public listed companies and they really change the machine learning model that can predict with pretty good accuracy which company in the next quarter is going to be accused of violating the anti-money laundering or illicit financial flows so that's a good idea but he's actually an entry-level public servant in the tax bureau and so his directors are really not into that idea but because he can now project the president's image wherever I can summon a president so he just came forward and said hey I work in the tax bureau I'm actually a public servant but had they not won the presidential hackathon they can just become totally anonymous and they can get the radar and so having this kind of design where people can be absolved of the risk of innovating but still take the credit when the innovation works I think that's also very important when we're designing a mechanism that rewards people for proposing the ideas that are genuinely they believe are good for the public and have a sandbox to try for three months that it's generally good for the public so theoretically of course this question is right we always do multi-step design so that people are required to review more and more of themselves but only when the risk is also lower and lower guaranteed and that's the credit associated with it is also more and more so eight people would like to know what's the main goal of radical exchange so radical exchange as I explained the main goal is here developing institutional reform ideas really good financing data markets to officials in various places and so to further the possibility of cooperating across difference so that is the stated goal all those institutional design mechanism design whatever is just to take a hard look at our inherited institutions and traditions and figuring out the silos or the bad designs the inefficient design that punish people for cooperating that punish people for proposing good social innovation idea that punish people from revealing their true preferences and then turn it around and start rewarding people for doing those pro-social things so that's the idea of radical exchange and it doesn't have to be quadratic voting, it doesn't have to be quadratic financing or any of those ideas that Glenn has outlined in the book it could be totally outside the book as long as this is really about promoting cooperate across difference I think as well within the spirit of radical exchange so quadratic voting as we can see is actually very intuitive our little experiment with presidential hackathon show that people generally get the idea and we are now also kind of what's the word here drinking our own champagne in the radical exchange foundation and so this is a real voting ballot and this is built with the great technology called as the spreadsheet which is very portable we don't need specialized software we would just write some spreadsheet and so you can also very easily replicate it and so this is our actual blind ballot so each of us all the board members in radical exchange meet through the great internet every quarter and every quarter each person can propose resolutions for other people to vote on and then we have a of course deliberative structure where we talk about pros and cons and have long email flame wars not really flame wars but very long email threats talking about each proposal's merits and things like that but then at the end of it we have to make a resolution so at the beginning of forming of the board we first are making a resolution saying that whatever we decide through quadratic voting will affirm by unanimous vote because the New York city bylaws doesn't quite recognize the quadratic voting so we have to first bind ourselves to whatever that's result of quadratic voting we have to make it also then another unanimous vote to make it true and then the resolution very simply put is a one line description of what's to be resolved and then we can approve or disapprove it so each of the board member can vote yeah or nay and so like 25 means that I feel moderately strong I guess about adopting quadratic voting but I can also vote nay which then would of course I wouldn't want to cancel my own vote so I would vote 0 here and then vote something there to show that I disapprove of this and so all the resolutions that have more yay votes than the board's resolution so again I mean this is very intuitive I don't have to share the source code of this spreadsheet you can probably code up this spreadsheet in an hour or maybe one minute actually structurally very simple and then the good thing is that it also let us only express opinions on things that we feel strongly or know something about so if for this quarter all the resolutions is something that I don't care or that I don't understand I don't really have to vote so that's the idea of a carry over voice credit so each quarter each board member receive 100 fresh voting credit but all the unused voting credits will be carried over into the next quarter with the depreciation of one quarter and so that means that maybe the first quarter I have 100 if I don't use it then it depreciates by one quarter so the next quarter I'll have 175 and so on and so forth but once voice credit never exceeds 400 for obvious reasons and so people are still motivated to vote once in a while at least once in a year otherwise your voice credits will depreciate to the point that it's not really useful to keep them anymore and so there is again this idea of using market mechanism to reward each board member to review their true preferences even though in the deliberative phase where people generally feel okay about this is still useful for the person that proposed this resolution to gauge at exactly what how strongly people feel about a particular project even if everybody feels it's okay about it maybe nobody want to spend any voice credit on it or just one or just four voice credits on it and then people can very easily gauge the general feeling as well as form much more effective partnerships around things that we feel actually much more strongly about and so this is really low threshold social technology you can start adopting it for your next board meeting it's actually very easy to implement so that's the part about quadratic voting and I hope that answers some of this question so one follow up question how do you resolve if votes are tied for two ideas well for board meeting that's not a problem because if the votes are yay as long as it's positive it's just going to resolve and just pass them through but if in the presidential hackathon people have exactly the same votes for the top 20 then maybe we just make the top 20 the top 21 but with a very large participating user base it's actually very difficult because for quadratic voting everybody can vote anywhere from one to nine votes for each project so we actually it's much harder to get ties compared to regular approval for regular one vote per person or end votes per person so far we've not run into a place where we really need to do tie breaking but we'll probably just include both of them so five people would like to know can I explain how does Taiwan citizens identify themselves on these e-services is a countrywide online identity framework yes so we do have a EID card much like Estonia and like Estonia it's up in so people don't have to use it I think maybe one in three people use it mostly for text filing but very soon also for online referendum signature collection and things like that and starting next year we're going to reprint our paper ID card and we will include as an option for you to enable the PKI card as part of that ID card but you don't have to again it's up in but we look forward to raise from maybe one in three people to maybe one in two people opting in for the national PKI card but again it's not mandatory I think Japan has a kind of my number or something like that that's also maybe one in four people one in five people so we're roughly in the same boat we're not in kind of Estonia where maybe nine out of ten people are making active use of the PKI card but we're gradually getting there and it's roughly speaking the same identity framework it's government issued it's public key it's pretty good you know privacy not that pretty good privacy electronic signature and people are also entitled to download their data we call it my data so that if you have data entrusted to a public administration or public agency like your healthcare data and so on you can get a copy of that you can also authorize some third party application to process that as well as understand what you're doing accessing your personal data and so on so we have a pretty good design to make sure that across different ministries they cannot really look at the raw data so if you trust your privacy data to a minister of health and welfare the minister of interior cannot really look at the raw data without a law authorizing that but they can look at statistics and there's also ways to work on statistic collaborations between different agencies as well as between different agencies in the framework so five people has an interesting question what avoids that you actually don't save the information of a meeting or a meet in a random place like a house so I think that question is about what if I choose to meet in a non office space and do some binding decisions over that but without disclosing it first of all the protocol which is visit.pdc.tw actually takes care of that it says from the section 3.1 it could be meeting in the executive U.N. or it could be meeting in my office space so if you look at an office space it's actually linking to open street map which is good I guess but then it also says that if I conduct this in my official residence and meet any non office space then we should make audiovisual recording and so basically the recording strength is different depending on a different physical location if this is one of the office spaces where I'm always accompanied people still have a kind of copy of what's being talked about then just people would then trust that if I'm not recording things verbatim I still have a company colleague and my office is actually one delegate from each ministry so those delegates don't really work for me they still work for their minister and so they will make sure that what is being talked about is co-share and if there is in treating or lobbying behavior they will just fill this form and for a long and so basically there is very little chance of a off record meeting if it's in my office space privacy oriented spaces like my official residence then the protocol extends to say that it has to record entire audiovisual so for example David Ploove actually that visit was in my official residence so if you go to YouTube you can actually three not only a recording but actually a 360 recording from the first time that doorbell rang to the time that he walks out you can just put on VR glasses and feel how it's like to have a conversation about Uber and that is basically the way to prove to the people in general that first I would choose the official meeting space wherever possible but also if it is not the official meeting space then it's made into official space ish by making sure that the entrance as well the exit of the visitor is both recorded and because my schedule is also public to all the different delegates to my office and everybody can actually see what my office is working on it's using a very standard technology called Wikan which is a fork or really a copy of Kanban so everybody can also track everything that we're working on so it's actually very difficult to have a clandestine meeting within the packed schedules and so people don't even try so that is a basic response to this question so before I answer the rest of the questions I do want to get through at least some of the other ideas of radio exchange as proposed by the communities one logical extension to quadratic voting is called quadratic finance and this you see this kind of diagram all the time so it's maybe a good thing to explain it basically as I explained you can vote for one vote and it will cost you one point and four points will be two votes so basically the point roughly corresponds to the area of these blocks and the strength that is to say it's actual effect roughly corresponds to the height of those blocks so if you see a lot of block diagram when we talk about the quadratic whatever papers that's what is being meant it's not exactly intuitive I try to convince the presidential hackathon team to do something in the form of a glass like this where people can pour I don't know liquid into it and then the kind of liquid you pour into will be also quadratic to the effect of the strength of your votes but they think this is not actually more intuitive than blocks and so they just did away with that so anyways but whatever metaphor we use this is the effect of quadratic voting and so quadratic finance says that the government have matching funds as we actually do to a lot of public funding projects and most of the time we want to fund projects that serves a wider public interest but we also want to incentivize people to bring more of their funding into it so we want two things first that we want funding from the crowdfunding scene but second we want the crowd part in the crowdfunding as well and so quadratic finance is a very simple way to say if you only have one person in the community caring about this project then they will just self fund the project because obviously nobody else thinks a good idea but people can signify signal that is a good idea just by putting very small amount of votes into it so for example this red project here there's five people caring about it and the area is not really larger than the purple one but it shows that more people are benefitting from this project so the government or the co-op or whatever organization want you to implement quadratic finance will take it as a signal that more people want it to happen and so match according to the height of this basically making it a full block quadratic and again this one will get not as much matching funding but at least it benefits two parties and so they will take care of almost half of the funding while the co-operative or the government takes care of the other half of the funding so this is just an intuition you can change the parameters however you want but the basic idea is that we want a social signal from people who maybe don't have that much extra money laying around crowdfunding but they can use just one dollar to signify that they really want to see this happen and once they get a sizable following the government or the co-op in question can use that signal to know that they really want to offer the matching fund to make that happen first but if nobody else cares about any particular project then that project doesn't really warrant using the public money in the cooperative of the government so that's just a very logical extension of the quadratic voting idea using that as a signal of the social benefit so feel free just to walk in and now I understand there's many other sessions going on and so the second half of this talk I will just go back to the questions and I mean if you any of you want to start raising your hands that's excellent as well well there's 20 questions so we better get to it four people would like to know how would I measure the success of my policies that's a great question so in Taiwan we have this idea of a dashboard so each of our sustainable development goals have different implementation in that dashboard so I'll just use one example SD25 gender equality just to use that as an example of how we usually do impact measurement so of course we know that Taiwan is the first country in Asia that legalized marriage equality and Taiwan did this in a way that is thank you well this is quite qualitative but there's also of course quantified benefits of enabling marriage equality but we're also looking at this from a very practical standpoint because there was a constitutional ruling that says marriage equality must be implemented regardless of sexual orientation but then there's also two national referendums one say that the civic code regarding heterosexual marriage must keep as is without redefining what it means in the civil code but another referendum also says that we must protect marriage equality but without calling it the marriage in the civil code and so the career public service is faced with a very well defined that is to say very difficult solution space that have to conform to the constitutional ruling and the two referenda and without offending anyone but very kind of miraculously with just a few short months they delivered what we call the hyperlink act which is a new act that defines same sex marriage but all its content is just hyperlinks back to the civil code and that says same sex marriage is defined as such and they enjoy exactly the same rights and benefits of the marriage in civil code but what it does really well is that it hyperlinks all the bylaws meaning that all the rights and obligations are hyperlinked through but it doesn't hyperlink to the section that talked about the in-laws because in East Asia culture at least in Taiwan we have 16 different words for aunt and uncle meaning that people really care about the kinship relationship and indeed before 2007 there the marriage is an entirely social one you don't have to register for your marriage if you have a public ceremony involving both families it's signified marriage not only of the two people but actually there are two families then you're wet you can register after fact if you don't register it doesn't matter the marriage still stands but after 2008 we switch to a registration based marriage and the marriage is just about two people with two witness registering at a desk and whether they have a ceremony or not it's really not the government's business and so because we changed the definition of marriage kind of midway different people from different generation have very different ideas about marriage and so when we legalized the bylaws we took special care in saying that but it's not touching the in-laws so when two same sex people wet it says nothing about their family relationships and that really is the key to convince the people of the older generation the social marriage ceremony people to see this as something distinct from the marriage as they knew it which is not part of the law anymore but they still have fond memories about it but that isn't being encroached by the same sex marriage but the same sex marriage of course enjoy exactly the same rights and obligations so why can the public service figure out this quickly that's because they have data so first of all the MPs like it and partly because our MPs are very gender balanced this is a slide that I used in Canada so I just compare with jurisdictions near Canada and Taiwan if I'm going to talk in Scandinavia I'm not going to show this slide because they have far more women in their parliament but we are doing pretty well in terms of North American and East Asian standards and so there's a lot more balance in the parliament but aside from the parliament really the administrative branch is where the measurement of progress is really done and this has been going on for 12 years all the projects and bills are reviewed by this gender equality committee which is by design a multi-stakeholder committee with 14 ministers and 17 plus one civil society leaders and so if they really go to a vote the social sector will win and the public sector will lose so that incentivize the ministers really actively participate in the gender equality council and then with that council all the projects which is about 200s every year and all the bills that we propose to the legislation which is about 20 per year and a very detailed assessment of the impact that they are trying to do on gender equality on one particular sustainable goal and everything they collect gets into the gender dashboard which keeps refreshing even when the project is over so this is one particular example this is talking about the employment service act or the ESA and they have to start ticking a lot of boxes analyzing the current status and problems and what gender related kind of top level goals so it's to help women who leave the workplace to find employment and then what's their solution to the problem and during the solution have they considered the necessity what are the supporting measures what are the concrete policy goals and this is where you get from the qualitative to the quantitative and who are the groups affected by the legislation have you done any external consultation with those external groups KPRs suggested by the external groups affected by the legislation which relative authorities have you consulted what are the previously agreed benefits of those policies as agreed by those external consultations are there any constitutional considerations and what about international covenants and so on and so forth and this is actually just one-third and I'm just to spare you the rest is that each and every analysis each and every quantitative term in this analysis is then turned into a data set so if this policy calls for measuring gender balance in the numbers of volunteers in the health department or the labour force participation rate proportion of female executive in the administration proportion of people who are principals to schools or high schools and so on if they mention any term then we start measuring it and once we start measuring it it never ends and so this is an ever increasing gender dashboard and that then inform the theory of change people can actually very easily see which policy have reached which missed its target which collateral damage or collateral benefit it did to the gender equality which forces people not only in the ministry of labour which obviously have something to do with gender but also ministry is the finance ministry of economic development to start considering about gender impact even if their job doesn't usually cover it and if they forget to consult external groups or whatever then the majority civil society leader who all have to review each and every of those assessments will kindly remind them of it and without their approval the project never clears the cabinet meeting and so because of that they really have to go back and then consult people and so that basically is the idea we have very similar arrangement for other sustainable development goals but the idea is that we just keep measuring the things that are identified by stakeholders as important in the consultation meetings and once we run the project even after it's finished we never stop measuring it and so this is just a standardised way to measure for gender equality but we're also going to introduce a very similar one for the open government as well as part of our national action plan on open government for SDG 16 and so that's the basic idea so the measurement is yes, finally somebody raised your hand last week I was just in Buenos Aires I'm still adjusting from a gel egg so I think from my understanding Argentina has also really started looking into international measurement theories of change in the past three years of course it's hard to finish everything in three years but I think it's generally moving to the right direction with the international standard components so that we can enable independent assessment through the different policy areas I think the most important thing in Taiwan when we're adopting this kind of very progressive election is that we always keep the social sector of a higher legitimacy than the public sector and this is really the kind of secret source of Taiwan's democracy because Taiwan used to be under martial law but it got lifted in 1987 but our presidential election is 96 so there's 10 years between people who have the right to assemble and free speech and the presidential election and so the civil society has 10 years to start to build legitimacy and the administration had no legitimacy other than what's inherited from the martial law era so when we start really democratizing there's already very strong civil society organizations that are perfectly fine raising their funds even rolling out their product and services even people donating so regularly to it that they get a very much like tax like income and so on so with those social organizations making sure that the government is measuring according to what they want they often just set up like the gender equality council a governance mechanism that involves the government but is not dominated by the government the government has strictly speaking a minority seat in it so they will invite the government in to participate and get the legitimacy that the social credit they not that social credit the credit from the society have accumulated but then the government never gets to control it so I think that really is the key and I will use another example which is the air box which is also have something to do with distributed ledgers so I think it's good to share it here but this is one of the more popular citizen science projects in Taiwan people care about the air quality like PM 2.5 pollution and things like that and so people just bought those very cheap less than 100 US dollars devices and put them in their balcony, their primary school or whatever their office space and start just reporting to a distributed ledger what their measure air quality is and the ledger is great because otherwise people would question the numbers and maybe you know people would before the day before election accuse each other of going back and change the numbers but ledgers make sure that this doesn't happen and so all those 2000 or so stations are entirely operated by people by citizens and they don't have any government funding and when this started the environmental protection agency has maybe 77 stations and so you're of course going to trust the station that nearby you maybe not as precise as the national one but in any case it's much closer to your home because of that when I shared this slide with many nearby jurisdictions in Asia they were bewildered and said that in their jurisdiction if there's some uprising like this they would try to buy off the leader of the technology and recruit them into the government and if they refuse by the 200th station they would try to discredit or maybe disappear them and this is this is true I mean this really threatens the government legitimacy but because the government is so used to the social sector having more legitimacy and there are things like Airbox come around which is like we can't beat them we must join them so we just start talking with them saying what do you need, what do you want and the citizens said oh we want Airboxes here which is the industrial park there are private property with suspected them of air pollution they say they're not even polluting anything and there's a kind of squabble going on so we're like yeah we can help within the industrial park so we can just hang their Airboxes using their particular writing to their led ledger but on the lamps on the industrial park or people say I want to measure the air quality here because I want to tell domestic versus over the straight air quality but they can't really measure there I mean people did try to fly a drone there but you know battery technology being what it is it really can't be at air very long so it's very costly for a citizen scientist to measure air quality there but people are interested in that spot and we're like yeah we're building a lot of wind turbines renewable energy plants there so we can just amend the contract and say anyone who want to construct a wind turbine must also do some air quality measurement and write to the citizens ledger on the citizens Airbox network and so basically the public sector always plays a supportive role which has two benefits first that people learn that if they don't like what the government is doing they don't argue for a larger government which as I understand is some part of the culture of the Argentina culture is that if people feel the government isn't doing something they just advocate the government doing more of it and enlarge the government but when people feel that they have more legitimacy than the government then their natural tendency is just to do it themselves and so the government doesn't have to keep growing and they don't have to keep taxing people more so that's the first benefit and the second one is that because using distributed ledgers and open innovation we actually can engage with people around the world that just download the Airbox Co from Github that just starts a Raspberry Pi or Arduino or whatever open hardware and people who want to apply to other domains like water box some kind of water quality measurement can freely do so and so open innovation also makes sure that the government doesn't have to take on the maintenance so the innovation is done by social sector and the maintenance is collectively shared by businesses private sector social entrepreneurs that see a business model of it and so the public sector does the minimal which is you know hanging air boxes on lamps in industrial parks so I think that really is the answer to your question is just to have a good cross-sector relationship yes yeah that's the topic of this talk it's called radical exchange anything that can incentivize this kind of voluntary collaboration without a centralized government like top-down design so it's still policy design but it's planning a more humble way it's just us saying you know people have different positions is there a way to make them much more willing to share their common values instead of just fighting on different positions and if we keep asking this question then people are actually much more willing to entertain the idea that maybe there are common values after all despite different positions and so I think radical exchange is a really good umbrella when I was in Buenos Aires there's actually a chapter in Buenos Aires and also in Chile and so people when I walk into so I gave a public talk in this political and judiciary department but that department in the university is sharing its office space with the department of finance on market design and mechanism design so just random people studying economics are also in my talk and there's a very fruitful umbrella because radical exchange means that people can apply their market design, mechanism design ideas in the public space through social innovation so everybody feel that they can have something to contribute even if they're not yet a minister they can still contribute it from the level of their university or their community co-op or their apartment management for their community complex or things like that and so it can start at a very small level but lessons learned can very easily be scaled up and scaled out as well so I think RXC is a pretty good umbrella for people who want to experiment with that idea without having a okay from the public sector the public sector can join after the fact so that's essentially the kind of line of persuasion that we're now talking to various different countries it's basically saying you know Colorado, Taiwan or whatever did something and it looks very shiny and then we understand this requires political will that you probably don't have but if you just use this spreadsheet in your next meeting then your meeting gets better and so basically a like pilot but with a low enough threshold of joining and that's the basic idea of how RXC try to get into different jurisdictions buying votes right yeah so that's a really good question so for presidential hackathon we actually like people to buy votes because we want more people to learn about these ideas and really it's only about setting the relative priority anyway and so people are going to mobilize voters with with social buying or you know just mobilizing their users to vote for them the thing is that once you get into the voting apparatus there really is no easy way to a test that you have voted exactly like that because unlike electronic voting the central telling is only done in our application so even if you screenshot your process of voting you can easily also fake that screen casting and still vote for something else so there's no easy way to for people to systemically buy votes that's the first thing and the second thing is that even with social I wouldn't say buying but encouraging people to vote for you what we have seen from the log is that when they vote as instructed nine votes everything to one project they still have 18 points left and they still look at other projects and many people just take away from the initial votes once they find something that they know more about and so we see this over and over again with the design that we introduce before we use quadratic voting we also use a AI based conversation method called Polis and the Polis which is having this structure basically where you can ask people to come to a website and look at one sentiment from one fellow citizen and they can vote agree or disagree and as they do so their avatar move among the people that share similar sentiments as they do but there's no reply button because if you have a reply button the trolls win the day they have more time on their hands but if you don't have the reply button people after voting a few years or a few years from now what we have seen is that even for very controversial topics like when we did this for UberX and then Airbnb Airbnb mobilizes the voters by sending an email to all the Airbnb members in Taiwan and say go to the Polis website and vote for Airbnb but because the vote is a multi-dimensional space like in QV your voting is actually very dynamic and they go to the website we have seen that people who are recruited by Airbnb actually only less than one third stuck to the Airbnb position after they see a few new sentiments from their fellow citizens they start thinking maybe they still need some regulation and things like that and they move toward a much more nuanced way so my point is that we are so used to voting being very asymmetric in representative democracy every four years but the policy decision that impacts us is highly asymmetrical but in this kind of day-to-day participatory democracy we try to design the spaces so that people can upload a lot of bits so for a statement you upload one bit and each Polis conversation maybe has 50 statements so everybody contributes 50 bits into the discussion and if you send another statement for other people to vote on you essentially extend the solution space by another dimension and so people start participating much more and once you have this bond with it's actually very hard for people to buy vote the concept of buying vote actually kind of dissipates because it's a dynamic space where people have a lot of more flexibility and especially that people can see after each conversation or each vote that there are really only a few things that people agreed on and people mostly agree on most of things by most of the people and this is actually a very powerful picture for any democracy to look at because if you look only at institutional media or even some social media people would think that there's only those five things that dominates people's attention across party lines, across ideological lines, across whatever other lines but actually people have much more in common it's just they don't spend calories talking about that but this is an actual picture we always get this picture but this one in particular is from Kentucky, US, Bowling Green and as you can see the top most group informed consensus no matter whatever their position is on gun control or something whichever group they are on they broadly agree that the basic education they have at the moment is concentrated on science, technology engineering and maths but everybody think the STEM need to become STEAM by adding art to it and this is somewhat surprising because people don't spend much calories talking about it but people are surprised to find no matter whether you're Democrat or Republican everybody agree that arts are important in the STEAM education and schools are not doing that so why don't we just go ahead and do it there's really nobody who cannot live with this idea and so this kind of symmetric bandwidth where people can contribute much more bits into public discussion makes it almost impossible to buy votes because this is emergent this is crowdsourced agenda nobody can beforehand say you have to support art in education because that is literally generated during the process and the same for the presidential hackathon so if you vote for issues for priorities or like Slido vote for questions it's always easier for people with a large enough crowd to assemble something that is creative but if you're voting for people of course that's much harder and so that is the basic answer I hope yes a follow up it's true I mean if you want to kind of as a group get more subsidies from the government you would then motivate a lot of people who don't really care about this project to nevertheless spend one dollar to care about the project so that is a valid concern and I think one of the kind of counter argument to this is that but you also introduce people who otherwise wouldn't care about this whole setup at all to start caring about the setup and therefore they have much more room to signal that their interest in other projects as well because they wouldn't actually just spend their time vote on your project and go away like in our e-petition platform once you join a petition it does a kind of Amazon thing that says there's three other petitions that you also be interested at and you might want to look at it as well and so it gradually just gets more bits from the participants so I think when we're still spreading this idea it actually makes sense to collaborate with people who want to buy votes because it's free advocacy but at some point you would want to structurally limit the option of buying votes at some point but I think at the beginning we these people are actually our friends so there's a question on the back so good question so for the polis conversation we're not showing the detailed analysis until the very end so but people see a kind of general shape and for quadratic voting as well we're not showing during the voting the actual score that the issues get it can actually be experimented both ways one way of the one of the idea of showing the vote is that it will actually increase the participation rate for people who know that their project is currently at the 21st place and they really want to mobilize people to put it into the top 20 on the other hand that may actually result in a lot of churn by just two groups mobilizing for different things but maybe there's a good idea maybe we should try that but in the initial experiment we are more conservative about it so we basically said not even the jury get to see the final result the jury makes our feasibility assessment independently but we don't see the popularity part we just do our feasibility ranking and the popularity part is open up as the same time as we are feasibility and innovation ranking and so the QV actually takes 30% of the weight but the QV results are revealed in the presidential hackathon in the same time as the jury's reports but next time maybe we'll try to first also increase the ratio of QV because all the juries feel that they provide as good actually better signal than we do so we really shouldn't claim 70% maybe we should claim maybe just 30% we should flip that around and the next thing is that we should also work out roughly what ways to review just interior results during the QV that's a very fruitful line of thinking because I think it will also improve advocacy but to some degree we'll see so what I really mean is that is a good idea and we'll think about it yes yeah right so the numbers are out on github for everybody to analyze I think Peter's quadratic voting on github but in a nutshell we found two things first people really don't want squandering their points so even for people who just vote on a project and never change it they will still want to spend the other 18 points because nobody want to squander their voice credits and the second thing is that there are people who after voting for the third or fourth project realize that this one warrants more attention and takes some of the initial votes out but I don't have the exact numbers of the percentage of people who actually did that but because our comparison with the old system of people just go and vote and go right so as long as there are some percent of people who result in more careful consideration it's a win overall right so that's a really good question so with some with the same pseudonym level of protection for things like Slido or Epetition or presidential hackathon it's very difficult to imagine a retaliation scenario right so because of that zero knowledge is less desire because it's one more thing to explain but people don't really fear retaliation for preferring one SDG over another it's very hard to imagine a retaliation scenario but when voting for people like voting for mayors or voting for president of course there is a high likelihood of retaliation and for gaming as well and that's when I think the zero knowledge technology starts being useful that actually goes really well into the next radical exchange idea which is no not this one that's our president so the radical exchange idea of data dignity so basically that's actually very relevant to your idea there's this idea of privacy right about the information that I know or only I am my parents know but generally it's not known about us but there's also the idea of inverse privacy which is large corporations or hospitals or whatever have data that I didn't explicitly give them I just gave them as part of transaction but because I'm not really well informed they end up using those data to make decisions about me without my full knowledge and so that's kind of the idea of inverse privacy that I'm not even aware that I have data that is in custody of the data operators and that is what the data dignity idea from radical exchange is trying to address is basically saying we should look at all the different technologies including zero knowledge technologies but also differential privacy and split learning and also open algorithm all sort of toolkits that gets people first that what they care about is whether the people using their personal data is acting in their best interest and whether they can know for sure that they're acting in their best interest and this is actually a very intuitive understanding because if I'm going to intentionally tell my personal information to my doctor, to my accountant, to my nurse or whatever, my lawyer I would say that the second they stop acting in my best interest is the time that I switch a lawyer or I switch a doctor but the problem of the current data operatives is that it's largely opaque so even when they're acting in my best interest there's no way for me to know that and if they start to act not in my best interest there's no easy way for somebody to write a sequel query or a sparkle query and tell me to just do this query to the data operator to find out whether they're acting in my best interest or things like that and so have figuring out this relationship with large platforms some of them are growing their governance board and setting up their own supreme court as we speak and issuing their own cryptocurrency but in any case what we're trying to figure out is how to establish a data collaborative relationship so that people in general don't have to all learn the intricate mathematics but can translate the intuitions about the data we are operating in the real world before the internet like as I mentioned the fiduciary relationships with doctors and lawyers and whatever and turn those intuitive social questions and querying into a shared protocol so that we can run this to all the telecom operators all the social media operators and so on and to find out whether they're actually acting in my best interest and if they are not maybe they would like to compensate me somehow or maybe I would just exercise my data portability rights and move it to some other operator so that's the basic intuition about data dignity it's I would say that it's in an art like speculative design it's sometimes hard to tell art in a speculative design part but in any case it's in an art slash speculative design space at this moment there are some mathematical as I mentioned entrepreneurs of it but the main communication challenge now is just to make those mathematical entrepreneurs intuitive to everyday use and so that we can gain the legitimacy from the society to introducing those legislations and norms not really the legislations maybe start with norms with the large corporations so I don't really have a lot of time to get into the details but if you google for data dignity there's several lines of thoughts around that as well as pretty art around the space of making toasts and things like that so but I will not spoil that so that's the basic idea around just privacy as a kind of relationship data is relationship and not as oil there's really nothing comparable from oil to data they are like exact opposites but in any case so any other questions from the audience yes there's so you first yeah so my there's a great question is about whether I can share some stories about people who are conservative and don't really want anything to do with this kind of public sector innovation and and how I maybe change people's minds so I think that the trick here is that so my three working condition is radical transparency which I talk about location independence anywhere I'm working I'm working that's why I can get those very interesting office hours in the very creative space like the social innovation lab which by the way the soccer field is drawn by people with Down syndrome with trisome so we look at the world as numbers and text but they view the world as geometry and so instead of treating them as vulnerable populations they are actually creative artists that make everybody creative in this place so that's my second working condition is that I get to pick where I work and but the third thing is voluntary association so my office is kind of special because I'm a horizontal minister in Taiwan there's 32 vertical ministries each with a vertical with a top-down committing relationship but above the 32 there's nine people who are horizontal ministers and whose work is essentially reconciling the different values of different ministries and so my office is one delegate from each ministry so theoretically I can have 32 volunteers from 32 ministries but in reality not all ministry have sent people and that answers your question for example the ministry of defense never sent anyone I wonder why maybe they don't like radical transparency but anyway the ministry of continental China affairs never sent anyone I wonder why but after a year of my work as the minister at the Foreign Service actually sent somebody because they realized that there's a part of diplomacy called public diplomacy that they want the maximum of engagement and there's really no national secret so the idea very simply put is that people come to me if they want to work out loud if they want to convey through the cross-ministrial network their work to everybody but if they prefer to work in secret I'm not going to knock on the ministry of defense door and say tomorrow you'll have two live streams or meetings I'm totally not doing that because of that there's less pushbacks but when we started the national petition platform where people started realizing with 5,000 people joining they can get a ministry or response and some early successes like a co-creation of a tax filing because a designer petition saying the tax filing experience is explosively hostile and then we invited everybody into co-creation and made a tax filing service for this year that 98% of people likes so that's an early success story there's also early success about banning the plastic straws and replacing them with like sugar cane waste or some kind of circular economy material that's also a success so after a few of those early success we get the weirdest petitions there's a petition 8,000 people strong asking Taiwan to change the time zone to the same as Japan so we're UTC plus 8 and 8,000 people want to change to UTC plus 9 and at the same time 8,000 people want us to keep in UTC plus 8 so you can't please both sides if you say we change to 8.5 for North Korea and then that probably please nobody and so we actually have to invite both sides into face-to-face meetings and that's when the most ministry is involved after I started just bombarding them with the arguments that we got from the petition platform that people said things like you change in the time zone we'll save energy, we'll increase tourism, we'll increase stock exchange trading and we pastored each ministry to come up with a factual response of how it doesn't actually save energy, it doesn't actually increase tourism unless you're willing to violate labor law and so on and calculate a quantifiable like dollar value of the one time cost of changing the time zone and a recurring cost that we have to continually pour into it and many ministries are like really seriously trying to respond to such a petition but it turns out after revealing all this data people then start to talk about their feelings they don't have people on the same page when it comes to facts people just share their feelings on wildly different imagination scenarios but if we have the facts and share the objective facts with everybody including the dollar value that is going to be required on change the time zone people actually start sharing their true feelings like people who petitioned for plus nine started saying we do this because we want Taiwan to be seen as more unique in the world, they want people traveling from the airports of Beijing and Shanghai having to change their clock for some reason, signifying different jurisdiction maybe and people on the other side of petition who is in the same room correctly points out first smartwatches and phones now auto adjust their time zone so people are not going to be aware of it and there's many jurisdictions with many time zones like Australia or the US and so I mean it really doesn't work and if we're going to spend that much money after all it could be done in a much more effective way like popularizing and filming about marriage equality, about human rights about democracy, about referendum about open government and so they started brainstorming and decided that maybe spending that money on this kind of promotion is much better than changing the time zone which are not going to have much of benefit other than giving us maybe five minutes of international recognition and for silliness and so we just wrote that response to both petitioners and then the ministries realized that if they don't tackle this in a factual fashion then people are just going to recurring one that every other time that there's a parliamentary session, some legislator will actually just take that and just start asking the same question over again but if you just address those people's questions and bring them into the co-creation and people will feel that they have went through this policy question they will not be misled by misinformation and then they will always think actually that's not going to be cost effective and we're going to promote Taiwan some other way and so what started as kind of pushback or at least resistance from career public service become actually much more better once they realize that this now 16,000 people is going to help them to justify their public work instead of just distracting them through the changing of time zones and so that gradually won their heart back by realizing that there's no risk involved and the time they spend into it actually pays dividends amortized over time so there was, sorry so yeah well I think they come to my office because they know that there's literally 12 different ministries volunteering to join this program so I'm not a single person I'm somebody that can channel through 12 different ministries and get them into the space of listening of really understanding what they have to say and so I think this kind of what we call servant leadership or horizontal leadership is really about getting sufficient amount of buy-in from your fellow colleagues and understanding that all they are giving is their attention and their ability to listen and this technology is really only about listening by scale and it's not about fighting a zero sum game or something like that certainly that people vote on Slido it's just about the relative order that I answer the questions it's not about a referendum it's not binding a legislative level and so this more weakened binding power of channeling through the different ministries I think is the main thing that I offer and why people come to my office hour and I would also add that it's not because after I set up the office hour I realized that it's only people in Taipei or people living near a high speed rail station they can physically travel to Taipei with no problem like from the south of Taiwan it's just an hour and a half to travel to Taipei but people who are in the rural areas in the mountain areas in indigenous lands in offshore islands they don't really have the convenience of just coming to my office hour so if I just keep being in Taipei I should be biased by the people visiting me so that's when I started intentionally every other Tuesday to visit the people who are least likely to come to my office hour and meet in their local habitat their local meeting place so they may be meeting in their town hall maybe meeting with their elders in their indigenous nation assembly or whatever and then I'll just spend a day or two just living with them and doing a ethnographic well just hanging out and making sure that whatever they have to say is in the public on the record so that people will talk about public affairs instead of private interests and then whatever they say is then live stream both ways to Taipei where the 12 ministries are sitting there and listening to their ideas and so in Taiwan we say in Mandarin jie mian san feng qing meeting face to face is 30% of trust so meeting through high speed video conferences maybe 20% of trust and they will learn that previously when they talk to ministry of interior the MOI would say oh this is a good idea but I have to copy the ministry of health or I have to copy the ministry of economy but turns out each copying is very lossy in its compression whatever their full story is is lost in maybe two A4 papers maybe five power power slides and then the other municipalities or other ministries they solve the problem that actually solved the wrong problem but with this arrangement because all the section chiefs are on the same room the ministry of interior cannot say I'll have to copy the ministry of health because the ministry of health is sitting right next to them and so with the local people watching they actually have to brainstorm right on the spot and solve the problem right there and if they solve it they get a full credit compared to the previous battle days where if they solve the problem their ministry get a credit and if they really doesn't help and people become angry well you can't really hurt people over the screen so I absorb the risk because I'm the only person in that vicinity and so from a safe space afar they can try to brainstorm all sorts of different ideas and gauge its response from the local people and the local elders in both meaning of that word and so the idea is that if we go to people instead of asking people to come to technology I would argue that it actually works even better than the office hour arrangement because you say you're going to copy that so I have to say that if you just go where people are it's actually even better results I hope that answered your question so there was a question over there yes so you mean the technological application well so truth to be told most of the time we just use spreadsheets so yeah but we also have our own cybersecurity department audited technology called Sandstorm and this is something I think that's still pretty useful even it's now entirely an open source project and we're kind of the team maintaining it now but in any case this is useful especially if you're working in public sector because public sector would like to know if they're relying on access control and they're relying on auditing and they're relying on a cybersecurity system is hardened and we have the department of cybersecurity working with white hat hackers that won second place in DEFCO half a year using an open source audit and they filed three CVs and finally said that this is very secure and they secured the entire platform so that you can run any arbitrary open source applications on top of it popular one being ordering bento ordering lunchbox together but in any case you can very easily using JavaScript or whatever language write your own project and the usual community ones like HackMD which is an open source called KodiMD is what we use everyday just by bringing it into the Sandstorm application market space of course I personally maintained a spreadsheet in it EtherCalc and we use of course WeCan which is a street copy and so on and so forth and so all the productivity software can be used kind of free of charge and within a really cybersecurity fastened workspace so that's the main thing that we push but we also of course also maintain Polis and also maintain all sort of different technologies I think that the point here is just to use the whatever open source technology that a free software community at the moment is using and incorporating it in a way that is compatible with your cybersecurity agenda I think that's the basic idea yes so the two things right I showed Polis which is the kind of open-ended we key survey thing and it's on github you can very easily use it if you want to use quadratic voting in a closed system setting like a board meeting would actually suggest you just use spreadsheets but if you need a highly interactive one I would suggest you looking into the Colorado system the Santiago series system that they made it high open source and it's on github and if you can't set it up you have support here you can just use Santiago all right and so because their UI is better in hours and also you don't have to translate from Mandarin back to English I think that's the two advantage there was questions over the back no or no okay we're good all right so we have what 15 minutes so yes so I'll just give maybe a few seconds to each question so two people would like to know whether the slides are public yes all my slides are public it's on issue I'll maybe tweet about it but just to make sure it's if you want to download it you can do so now it's on pdisk.tw which issue.com and public digital innovation space the Taiwan the TW and so this is the slide I made some last minute changes so updated right after the talk and many other ideas like the gender impact assessment the digital dialogues and so on are all on the same website so feel free just to consult the slide you mentioned identities are government issues who generates and control the private keys for these identities and how our private keys managed far as I know our current generation of EID card is kind of like or maybe just Java card that they just generate in a secure enclave temper-proof ish I think that are generated upon production and the private key is never copied out to any place so it relies on the kind of physical support of the EID the new EID starting next year to be FIDO 2 compliant and also we're looking into ways to work with security chips in phones such as HTC that can securely store private keys that are compatible with our EID system and it will be API based because nowadays in Taiwan when we buy a new procure a new government service if the vendor said that I can only serve human beings and not robots APIs we can actually disqualify them for discrimination for non-professionalism it's just like 10 years ago if you run into a procurement where your vendor says I can only serve with people with sightedness but not people with blindness you can disqualify them for discriminating or actually for professionalism so now we're saying robots are people I guess using the same procurement clause that says if your ministry or agency that contracts out requires a machine to machine interface of an API using the Linux foundation standard open API 3 and you cannot deliver it and then you just get disqualified if you said you will require three times the procurement money to deliver a API version you can also be disqualified and so because of that this kind of API first design is really part of the government digital service standard now in Taiwan so because of that we get much better integration with third party scenarios and use cases and especially devices like virtual reality and mixed reality which is far beyond any procurement agency's ability to spec but if we just deliver the open APIs very creative people from mixed realities just started coming out with very interesting interface to public services after all so we're going to apply the same idea to our EID infrastructure starting next year as well but nowadays this is based on a physical card so Orin McMillan would like to know in my opinion what is the optimal cost for one vote in quadratic voting in finance well this is kind of by definition quadratic the square of the vote required the entire design of QV or QF is predicated on the fact that if you analyze what each marginal vote can do in terms of the social value it created or captured it makes the marginal return the same as marginal cost if you price it so that it's not quadratic like 5 points buys you 5 votes then it's actually too cheap for that and people would just use the strategy to just vote they have on the single one but if you price it differently then basically the optimal converging point is that if the return is the same as the cost yes right so I mean this is a more practical question this is not a theoretical question because as a co-op or as a government you probably already have a lot of budget to match with and beyond that you're just going to proportionally match and in the worst case analysis if you have zero dollars to match then what this is actually going to do is perhaps just looking at a total area and make sure that X only get this number of funding and use this funding right if you don't have anything to match all you can do is redistribute and then you can redistribute with zero matching making sure that everything is still proportional to the square of the sum of the square roots and you still have the same shape of course now taking this very wealthy and I don't know like very social, pro-social vendor and contributor to essentially subsidize for everybody else and you can still imagine that arrangement working if people are generally agreeing that they're on the same polity and a good thing for the group is also indirectly good for the single person of course if you don't have that social arrangement matching is of course a better incentive so that this person don't reach quit or something like that but you can easily imagine the spectrum between those two and design accordingly we're good? Okay, so we have 10 minutes I don't worry about both buying at this stage I've already explained that this I already explained so how do I get different ministries to work toward a common goal great question so the good thing about the RXC vision is that it doesn't really have to be a common goal it could be just a common value and it's very different each ministry caring about the social business governance environment still care about whatever goals that they care about we're not asking them to reduce their goals what we're essentially asking is that they also consider the values of other ministries when they form their goals and so this is the idea of collaborative governance or COGOF is essentially just by getting people into the habit of working out aloud most of the time they just automatically have a copy of other ministries people in their mind they develop a theory of mind of other ministries so that when they go about forming their goals they will also check whether it works with the common values of the other ministries people which they shared this kind of meetings and this kind of very good creative space and also excellent food food is also very important every time that they participate into those regional evaluation tours we make sure that there is a resident chef and that it opens until 11 p.m. so that people can enjoy food after the meetings and so on and so if people share over food their values most of the time they would just start forming a common values automatically because they will have a copy of their other people's values in their mind and when they're making decisions they will kind of automatically consider those different values instead of just their own positions but this is through osmosis no amount of mechanism design can force that happen but you can incentivize that to happen so wild molasses I would like to know government plays an essential role in coordinating humanity but in some places in most places it's inefficient and harmful well mostly inefficient mostly harmless but sometimes harmful are you optimistic about decentralized coordination yes I am really optimistic about decentralized coordination because it's cheaper than centralized coordination before the great thing that is the internet and to end principle and permissionless innovation we can't really say the same because at that time hierarchical communication is cheaper but now it's actually more expensive to limit your messages audience you have to think about it but if you make your message public you don't have to think about it and so basically the internet reconfigured the movements so that mostly the thing you have to think about is a domain name maybe in DNS or ENS maybe you have to think about the right hashtag but beyond that it is in the hands of the crowd it's in the hands of collective intelligence you don't really have to be kind of the choking point of the coordination and that really is the idea of decentralization and that's not because we kind of believe it ideologically because we're lazy and this is more efficient and so I think that's the main motivation it is somewhat determined by the idea of open internet which is why critical core internet infrastructure is so important to protect but I think the government nowadays at least in Taiwan are also learning that it's better if instead of just sending a message to everybody and getting everybody classified as SPOM it's maybe better just to make memes of our policies and make memes of our clarifications and then people would just organically spread out and remix it and things like that and so just you know we actually poach people from Laikak to make sure that we package our communication material in a way that is our organically viral and making sure that people can use the horizontal actionable, extensible and collaborative way of just making the social innovations and that fields belonging to the social sector like the airboxes instead of having the government play always in an arbitrating or role that blocks innovation so that's the basic idea do you have working regulations in place to regulate industries such as exchanges and the ICO? Yes we do and we have this idea which I can't really explain in detail for four minutes time but the basic idea is of a sandbox the sandbox is a really simple idea that and it started I think from the UK the Singapore also roll it out for FinTech but in Taiwan sandbox is general purpose as in general purpose computing you see sandbox applications around every ministry at least a dozen ministries and so there may be a sandbox about e-school to rental maybe a sandbox about using your mobile phone as your banking card maybe about self-driving tricycles and not even tricycles because our self-driving sandbox doesn't really care about the vehicle so it could be a car that flies or land or whatever but in any case once you have innovation and a place that want to work with you and we coach that place to serve as a one year sandbox and so it could be FinTech cryptocurrency whatever arrangement but if at the end of the one year people accept it as a good idea then your forked version of regulation become our regulation and the ministries actually have to rule out things that we don't have the first hand experience of so everybody get one year of first hand experience of course the MP at any time can say we want a special law about it but they can take three years or four years for self-driving vehicles to make a special law about that particular innovation but during that lawmaking process your experiment is still legal so it becomes kind of a limit time monopoly because everybody else is still illegal and you can still operate your business within that but I did the time where it has a new law done pertaining to your business of course will enter the market so what Taiwan is essentially offering is a safe space for you to experiment your ideas and if the ideas doesn't work well thank you for paying the tuition for everybody I guess but if it does work then your version of regulation just becomes our national regulation so FinTech sandbox I think it's not a new idea certainly not unique to Taiwan but we're applying it to all sort of different regulations and municipality rules what kind of public decision do I think this suit for QV and what it's not so this is for you to find out but what I think is what's obviously is that like participatory budgeting it's a agenda setting power that's set aside that adds something, an element of innovation and doesn't take anything away and in this kind of agenda setting people are much more tolerant even if it's a total disaster even if nobody turned out voting but we would say that we learned something but if this is about electing your mayors, electing your president that may not be a good idea so basically choose things that vote for things not people but also making sure that the things are extra things instead of taking away things you had a question well we're already using ledgers in decisions as I mentioned we're using ledgers and later on waterbox and so on we're using ledgers so that people who don't quite believe in each other can still contribute to the data commons and so for that particular application ledgers are great it's not like we have other technologies that can solve the same problem but for many other scenarios we're not automatically using ledgers sometimes all you need is a database so I think this is just a tool used only when you have a multi-party non mutually trusting relationship that nevertheless want to work on common data and so nowadays there's a pretty good flow chart in the Taiwan public sector of when to use ledgers and when not to use ledgers yeah I mean if transaction rate can be faster there's more applications but that's what they've gone for right and but for air quality measurement and so on I think this is the current generation of technologies useful enough because they're using zero G network anyway and biot and so on and biot has very limited bandwidth anyway so it's not like it will saturate the the right thing to the ledger so I think so far using only atmospheric or environmental data we're matching what the current capacity of the ledger technology in play but of course if there's better and faster transaction rate of course we can do more and we're at the same time so as I mentioned sorry about the other 14 people who proposed questions but didn't get sufficient number of votes maybe people should buy votes beforehand but if you're interested in the in the rest of the ideas after they can data dignity there's the idea of common ownership of identity and community and so on please feel free to just follow the red exchange with Twitter account just my Twitter account is a UDR Twitter and feel free to just email or tweet or whatever and thank you for this to our session thank you