 The system says, you need to increase your impact factor. You need to increase your hirsch factor. How do you do that? You publish easy stuff in journals with high impact factor. You're not actually creating knowledge on a knowledge level. You're creating an image of knowledge. Lots and lots of copies of all the same stuff that you send out to different journals. So you increase your publications, impact factor. And this is how you actually manage your keg up in the next term. And I think I just want to add something to this. Like in the earlier open science revolutions or evolution, science funding was never really affected. They went like funding and incentivation went to the old channels. And in this revolution, evolution, blockchain for science, for the first time funding will be affected. And where the money flows, the honey is, right? And if you structure this in the right way, and we have seen the first ICOs for science projects, and there are platforms that build tokens for ideas to have continuous coin offerings for research projects. And if you attach some rules to this, projects that are funded to ICOs and should be blockchain open, then we can really change something this time. I really love that blockchain for science project, because at the end, if I'm a publisher, I'm providing a service. I organize the peer-review process, I organize the archiving, I organize the publishing of your results. Why do I have to be in such a central position? I'm just providing a service. And there can be Elsevier, there can be Springer, whatever can be, can provide the same service, and the scientist should be able to say, okay, I'll go with them, I'll go with them. Yes, but you need to maintain the quality of the papers. And for this written editorial board, peer-review, you cannot publish everything in one journal. You need the peer-reviews, not the editors. The main work is not by the peer-reviews. Yes, those are the editors in it. They select the papers that can go, therefore, to the reviewers. I know anything is important, but there are several projects that do this in the community for free. You don't need the publishers. There are several journals out there that do this. The community does it for the community. I don't see one. So I just want to say that high quality, the issue is they're not high quality. And people are publishing the same thing as they've done before. Most people at our university don't want to do anything new, because they're not doing stuff for you. And it's just, people have this sort of mystical idea that what happens at universities? It's not what you think. Can I just say a quick thing about quality? I don't believe that we're able to assess quality correctly. I think we're only able to assess a base level of quality. So are the methods sound? Is the mathematics sound of the statistical evaluation? Are the citations sound? And all the rest is just, I don't know. I don't know what's going to be relevant in the future. And they just say, well, we don't understand this. Therefore, it's not publishable. So if you don't have the same thing as anyone else, fine, you'll get published. I understand that you're an publisher. What is your business model? How do you cover your costs? We have the open access business model. So you have two pages. Are there any processing charges? Exactly. OK. You want to say? Yes, I think two things. When we discuss this whole topic, one is what quality are we reviewing? Is it the technical quality of citations correct, et cetera? Statistics correct? But there is selection by it happening by the ones that you select to send to the reviewers. And it's probably also a high, it's a qualitative selection. And that happens. There is this bottleneck of qualitative, it was super qualitative selection. And I'm not sure how you would tackle that. And another general problem is wrong KPIs. And that is what the whole scientific community is very much driven. Because the university is being rated by the number of publications. So everybody is trying to press publications out there. And I think that's a wrong KPI. Good researcher is not one with a lot of correct publications with some publications, but sometimes through Skype research that doesn't end up being like the best research happens where you cannot probably, for a long time, press a publication out of it. How can we as a community tackle this? And that's probably very much beyond the question. But we don't have good quality because people are driven by the wrong KPIs. And another question would be like, IPFS is not yet production ready as far as I know. How would you like to restore data? Now if I want to publish now. Actually I would like to propose there is a workshop for tomorrow. Okay? Because it's also a big problem or a big thing for us. Are we going to this IPFS? I don't know. Thank you. So as a publisher you suggested that there is a mega-journal where we have all of the subjects included. And that's how it speaks to the interdisciplinary nature of the science that we are doing today. So one of the values I think to open science are also currently the reliability of articles. Because a lot of the times people put like a small like categories probably their paper is and most of the information goes into supplementary materials and so it's a lot for a lot. For the most part it's really hard to read like if you're from another discipline what somebody else is trying to do. So how do you propose to bridge the gap between disciplines? Because if somebody is really technical they're really going to have a hard time to simplify their topics. So do you suggest like a classroom version or how do you think that you can bridge the gap between these disciplines? That's a very good question. I'm not able to solve everything. We are just providing a very small solution to the problem so we're just providing a venue so you can publish it. I think that's very important what you're saying. I as a scientist need to strive to make my work understandable to other people. I know other people who think differently who say I'm researching on a very deep level and I want to stay on that level and I want to concentrate on that level because that's what I'm good at and if you don't understand it because you're not on the same level as me it's not my problem. I don't have to say that's wrong. I don't have to say that's right. I just would like to ask for openness to accept these different ways how to work and try to make venues for everyone so that we can all work together. I would say maybe there are different opinions out here. Maybe we should do a workshop on that tomorrow. That's a very human thing. Different personalities. I was at Wikipedia Open Science conference in Berlin and I make a workshop about fun and open science. What's fun and open science? And one of the people said and we all agreed afterwards that actually open science is a very human science accept like humans are and do it the human way. Now we continue with Matthias. He will talk about the Journal of Crypto-Economics to introduce it to us. And you can introduce it like... Good. Yes, hello. Welcome. Which is the end of my speech. Yeah, hello and welcome. I will talk today about the Journal of Crypto-Economics that we are working on since approximately one year. And I will explain also in the background how we came to this Journal and what we are standing right now and what we are facing. So first of all welcome and also a brief introduction to me. I'm a researcher and technology theorist and I'm having a background in computer science, architecture and a lot of interdisciplinary things. I would consider myself a codon and also I'm working in like diverse fields so I'm especially interested in knowledge production and also in project cultures. So there's no background. This is for future Crypto-Economics. It's a small research institute in Vienna and we're also part of the Austrian blockchain cluster so a few things that I'm going to be presenting today are things also that we are bringing into this Austrian blockchain cluster context. So I'm also part of the OSHWA which is the open source hardware association in the US which is basically some advocacy group to make sure that open hardware enters science and also that we can make possibly hardware make sure that hardware has the same principles as open source software which is an entirely different process as open source software because you have to make a lot of different things available to scientific context. IANA was also in the past a variety of numerous research projects mostly in Vienna. So we developed one journal already which is the Journal for Research Cultures which we could actually design together with the FRF which is an open access grant that we got in this context. Also my colleague Andrew Newman who is here in the audience today is one of the editors. If you're interested maybe we can show you also a few examples on this. It was a really, really interesting process for us as well because we are looking in the Journal for Research Cultures much more on how actual knowledge gets produced in specific cultures and we tried to address this in the review process. So we are tackling over the course of now four years and testing different review processes and we were questioning first and foremost also as the speaker before saying these specific review processes which are much more problematic and more close and more I would say embedded research fields where the researchers know each other so that you cannot make sure for example the double blind peer review is existing because the people would anyway know who is writing these texts which are so specific so there are so many issues to tackle. The other two qualities that I'm working on was also the Axiom open hearted cinema camera which was a large project that we could coordinate from Vienna and also making this technology and we have science communication project with an open access publication. A little bit about my background where I came to Bitcoin so I was together with two colleagues developing the Bitcoin cloud in 2010 and 2011 an art piece, a large mining rig that would only mine if you would watch it so it was actually criticizing the attention economy and by that also attracting itself as an object out of the art market so we had this kind of idea of how to utilize Bitcoin in a different way and how to work with attention in a way fairly small microeconomy by itself. We were in a way just using Bitcoin to make this point that we have a lot of biased information also in the art world the bias is created through attributing or giving the context of the art piece more of value as the actual art piece is worth in a way so if you would exhibit it in a museum it would be more relevant for you maybe as an artist if you would exhibit it in a small gallery. So I was then writing this paper with my colleague Ed Newman here which is called Cryptocurrency Disability Community Experiments we started in 2014 and then over one year we're looking into specific cultures and research cultures and specific value propositions that were given through the design of specific forked coins on the example of and we have to know at this time there was no Ethereum at play and not existing right now so it was just starting there was no ERC-20 token so a lot of interesting experimental designs and economic designs and experiments have been undertaken by this art coin community so we were looking into this and by that actually creating a longer research which in the end resulted in our Cryptocurrency Cryptocurrency as we have it today so a little bit actually also what I will be talking about now I will briefly explain you actually how we are working in the Institute of Cryptocurrency Economics and I will give a very brief introduction to Cryptocurrency again because Shannon was already explaining all the key values that you should know and nothing else so I want to actually focus a little bit more on the fringe aspects of it or the things that are not maybe yet known so the unknowns of Cryptocurrency Economics and I will then briefly about the challenge of Cryptocurrency where we are standing with this so Riot is now located in Vienna it's a space which is approximately 300 square meters we are there working like 12 developers researchers it's more of an so we are actually focusing on applied research a lot we have we also host a lot of meetups we do small work groups but also we develop with different international institutions specific research projects that are located around our domain of token economics but also more on like privacy and transparency research also yeah please make sure you sign up to our newsletter that we have weekly events also going on for example in July 26th we will have a Monero meetup which is featuring the Monero open hardware wallet so we are excited to finally see the production ready version so we are working also very closely especially informal research groups so which are not necessarily in the institutions it can be like hacker cultures like people that are working around a specific code project or share some common belief in how they work so in my opinion it's also good to have different institutions that also foster this kind of research or make them invisible visible so here is a small timeline what we did so this is also in fact it is taken from the blockchain Austria website which is part of the blockchain initiatives in last year in Austria and we tried to illustrate how the communities were emerging in Austria so as we see obviously there has been the specific hypes around from 13 to 14 from Bitcoin and from cryptocurrency as such but at the same time we see also we try to illustrate a little bit here also the culture it's very informal so there is a lot of meetups like the 700 Bitcoin meetup the Vienna meetup the oldest ones then a funny incident also that the Bitcoin foundation itself was actually founded in Vienna as well not so many people know that but during the initial the foundation was founded all of this kind of hidden histories that we have in cryptocurrencies also the previous speaker was referring to this we have a lot of non-institutional research non-institutional knowledge that is actually out there this is a very fringe culture we can capture now, we can make it available and I'm also happy that German is now setting up this institute because we have to also make sure that this is actually happening in an institutional setting where researchers can benefit from this as well so basically we also have an idea of what we are doing, so we have the artificial crypto economics which is working with artifacts so we are working in this field since approximately 2011 but not necessarily in crypto economics the term is a rather new term we was actually first mentioned by Rapp Zamphi in 2014 I guess it was some article on that but then of course other people jumped on the bandwagon we were talking about it and now as Schoenberg was actually showing what we did previously we were kind of collecting all these sorts of artifacts because with a strong design art background that we had that was the way how we worked and how we actually were thinking about also like encapsulating this information and possibly displaying this kind of information in a science communication context or in small exhibitions so there is like one example of an art piece in our art lab which is called blockchain performance actually 12 of the sunflower seeds from IOW which has been purchased with the first Bitcoin results from the Bitcoin Cloud 2012 so I don't know if you are aware of the IOW sunflower seeds but these are the they are so important because IOW are basically produced these kind of handmade sunflower seeds in the Tate Modern then the Tate Modern were powered by a large amount of these sunflower seeds so suddenly they had a value and the individual piece had a value and on eBay there was a black market getting into existence about these sunflower seeds so it was really interesting so visitors would actually steal those sunflower seeds and it was important for us to at this point to point at this kind of dark or hidden economics that we also have in existence in cryptocurrency so another example is this interesting piece that we put in 2014 which is a Bitcoin signature sneakers it's more of a kind of funny take to this whole IOW culture that comes into existence in cryptocurrency and especially around Bitcoin we notice these drawings of him like holding the Ethereum logo so it's actually another way for us to work with knowledge to embed the knowledge to work with objects so briefly also to embed this knowledge to the larger topic about the drawing for crypto economics and I know that Jeremy was actually saying a lot about these things already but I will try to point to facts that are maybe not so clear or maybe were not actually tackled yet so there is this less known quote from Satoshi Nakamoto who is actually lying out like I explained that he was working on Bitcoins designed for a very long time there is a lot of speculation who he is some people claim to know who he is some people didn't claim he also was Nakamoto as you can see in the Bitcoin clash we have interestingly the situation that of course a lot of things are solvable with trust economics are based on trust but the interesting thing that Bitcoin introduced was this idea of zero trust and to in a way create this kind of zero trust system but at the same time we have crypto economics which explains this Nakamoto didn't know the term yet and didn't use the term crypto economics this is one of the more popular descriptions of what crypto economics is Shannon was already pointing to this if you google it you will have different kind of descriptions about it but this is for example a lot of things take on it so the focus on the designer characterization of protocols, the government of production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in a decentralized economy interestingly these things could also be done without blockchain because who says that blockchain is the only decentralized economy and we had a very interesting interview also we were discussing this is there actually crypto economics outside of blockchain and it could be like an interesting topic as well to look into so as we heard already before we have a cryptography plus economics and an interesting new mixture and Satoshi Nakamoto presented the first crypt economics system and this is usually the classic example to explain this kind of incentivization layer Shannon was also pointing to so we have BitTorrent as a very famous peer-to-peer system the basic problem is why would you share a file as soon as you download the file basically you don't have any incentive to stay online normal so the other example that is also used in this context is often SiaCoin which is trying to create this kind of incentivization layer by creating a decentralized marketplace incentivizing and making sure that people keep files uploaded but at the same time having zero knowledge designed that you don't know which kind of data you're storing so it's maybe like a little bit of a lot of happy input but I guess looking into the crowd most of you know already what I'm talking about these are the three also by Shannon mentioned fields that will be considered economic research as of today consensus protocols cryptographic application designs and state genus but there's a lot of things that are outside of this goal also already tackled by Shannon we have a lot of interesting aspects that have been tackled by alcoons in 2011 which were basically if you look at this as a spinner from last week this is called market capitalization a lot of art coins a lot of tokens all these types of different asset classes that are out there but if we look at the full scope we see that actually before Ethereum was invented the value proposition was a different one because you had to basically make sure that you had a network to make sure the network is alive so basically if I would actually create a fork of Bitcoin I would have to make sure that enough people let's say at least more than two nodes have to be in existence otherwise we are risking a Byzantine fault tolerance not being at play or like 51% of tax being actually 50% so it's not that easy so the interesting thing is like what we were looking at at this time in 2015 it was published also at the most problematic office because it's an Elsevier run publication so it didn't get so much citation so we should have put this into open access obviously also like what the fuck is like happening with academic polishing so what in the end happened also at this time was Ethereum actually got introduced which changed the complete way of how basically crypto economics as such came into existence but at the same time we had a very important situation happening with the data namely the ERC-20 token standardization coming up and here's I'm making it to an article by my colleague Daniel Peter who was writing on the column about the introduction of tokens and what it did to the ecosystem so interestingly we are facing this new asset class or time of different asset classes and Ethereum changed very very much how actually people would actually think about tokens so the technical the technical knowledge of the people thinking about assets thinking about digital assets that wasn't no precondition anymore so basically you shouldn't you wouldn't need to know so much about like systems design you would just need to use software this was an integral part that Ethereum introduced at the same time through this introduction of Ethereum we had a lot of other experiments social experiments different experiments coming into existence which were not only based on currency also as Xiaomi was outlining all this kind of different domains what is what is all like where like governments protocols we saw like prediction markets all these different fields that are there's not so much research into them yet there's maybe like the small parts and small elements from earlier cultures but now actually this kind of arms race also because you can actually make money through ICOs started so this is the time we are in now and how we see this currently is crypto economics in its core design produces projections of future events because you have to make sure that the user in the end in your system the player works and functions in a way that you expect them to work so basically you have to make sure that there's a punishment for specific unwanted behavior but there's also a small incentive to behave correctly so this would be like of course the way how we would design a crypto economic system but there's other ways of predicting the future and there's other systems and other specifics we can actually look at and this is what we are looking at with the genre of crypto economics and for us specifically we're tackling this through the problems so we we accept and we have to accept and it's it's actually also nice to some extent and crypto economics is such a very narrow field but we were thinking about what other kind of fields can we look at that maybe did undergo a similar transition so it's interesting to in this context always point to game theory which was a very narrow field in its initial setup in the beginning but then later it merged into an interdisciplinary field also with elements of social sciences and all sorts of interdisciplinary theory put on top which is interesting now we have this kind of largely interdisciplinary field we are asking ourselves like how can we make that field more interdisciplinary but not looking only at the mechanic designs but also to question what are like for example social implications of specific future events of future systems that are designed and how are they interacting what kind of maybe society are specific over incentivized systems or economic systems producing and especially we are also thinking about crypto economics beyond Ethereum and outside of the blockchain is this actually possible or is this happening is it just like a possible approach to question what could be this kind of larger field of crypto economics so currently our challenges and it's very interesting also to see that there was so much so many different other projects now always pointing at this fact that academic publishing is flawed and that we have so many issues in this specific process we are currently in the phase of searching for reviewers and to get a non-opinion board setup which is very important because the problem is the industry like most of the people are working in the industry so how can you make sure that you don't have a board with like 20 Ethereum biased people it's like the question how would you set this up so we are since half a year like setting up a board and making sure that there is a non-biased happening and especially if the review is interesting it's important because I don't believe that if you would for example create the token mechanics paper and would actually give this up for review that there is any unbiased result possible especially the people working in ICO culture or like head working with ICO policy before know that it's just costing a specific amount of money to get the specific result you want with any sort of member amount of the communities that it's just happening we see this on a daily basis actually but kind of PR campaigns that we see on Reddit and other of this media so you see like just the basic thing that we outlined for Ethereum in DefCon last year in Cancun and we were spreading this and starting a different process of coming to the result of our journal so what we did is we were basically thinking about how can we frame the field, how we can actually understand what kind of different beliefs are there what kind of different players are there who is not working in crypto economics what kind of different taxonomies do we have to create in order to make sure that we have a good starting point so what we did in the end is we created a market for future crypto economics which is also located in the Riot space we also mobile setting where we can do interviews or we can make photos and we are creating qualitative interviews basically so what we call it actually is we call it the qualitative interviews continuous integration method so what we try to wrap it up a little bit just like two more minutes so basically how we are working is we are trying to make it more of a social process also so we this re-editor is currently working on it like also she will be joining us in Vienna and we will be also working in the context of the Austrian blockchain center which is also Liri and me and we are basically setting up this working in these three formats so the avatar which is this interview setting qualitative interview settings we have now until now 22 interviews that will be published within the next month we have the residency of future crypto economics which brings like 12 crypto economics research to Vienna where we are creating this kind of longer participatory research starting from next year and the journal for crypto economics which will be the output format so basically this is how we see it so that it's the net and the residency producing this kind of call for Germany and basically the start of this again we have come three also the process we have 22 interviews so far and we have a close call out in 2018 which is basically seeing also what kind of research we can get from specific research we directly ask for more qualitative outreach and there will be an open call in the working hours which will go out in the quarter three of 2018 and we plan a rolling publication so there will be already a few reviewed papers out hopefully also in the quarter three of 2018 so our current challenges and questions and also like if a lot of possibly interested audience also here we are extending the board so we are very happy we give suggestions for board members we are collecting reviewers so if you are feeling safe in a specific crypto-economic context or a specific expertise then please get in contact with us and of course we are going public soon also with the call but yeah with us it's not long so yeah contact is if you are interested to participate I hope to also get started with my colleague Andrew Newman is also here and yeah thank you very much thank you we should definitely I think the first thing to do is to map the research questions so I think there is a lot of ways to collaborate here and we will have a break we are running very very late so if you have questions Matthias will not be here later in the afternoon but he will still be here in the in the party later okay so anyhow we are having a sorry for that just ten minute break we have seven more talks coming up no no no we do that changes so there will not be a community discussion about what blockchain we will use we can do that tomorrow it will be led by flood and Laurie is not coming maybe he will come tomorrow about the micro-contribution talk so we have like six more talks you already know the audience you already know what we have talked about and maybe you can just drop some slides and still drop them and stick with like ten minutes plus like two three minutes question it's always the same problem it evolves it evolves you get to know each other and yeah okay so thank you Matthias please stick here for a few questions we have a ten minutes break dreams outside there is a small machine if you want some sweets or there is some snacks and we will have a proper lunch break yeah and we will continue at 11.30 okay at 11.30 yes yes yes good super