 of the simpler use cases, the provenance and the real estate title, things that are so you can, at least I like them when I try to explain them to audiences because you can sort of understand the ledger as a history. There are a lot of other projects in coming that, and Susan I think will probably share some views on some of this, that while they are tended and for future looking forward facing, they may not be quite well suited to the world as we live in it right now that we may not quite be there yet. Chaldea, do you have thoughts? Yeah, and Susan? Yeah, I think the most fascinating aspect is the disintermediation and the elimination or potential elimination of middlemen. You know, a few months ago, Hyundai Merchant Marine completed a pilot voyage of goods from South Korea to China completely on blockchain, and that's an amazing concept that, and that's the future, and that's what companies are gonna start to do. Absolutely. I may have you guys sit a little bit closer to the mics as we, well, and I think what you just said was tremendously important to, you know, this industry as a whole. Would you mind repeating again, just a little bit closer to the mic, the voyage? Sure, so Hyundai Merchant Marine recently completed a blockchain voyage of goods from a port in South Korea to a port in China, and the entire transaction was done through blockchain, and by eliminating all the intermediaries, the goods get there faster, more efficiently, and cheaper all through blockchain and smart contracts, and that's where this industry is headed, and we did a lot in the breakout sessions to try to identify the different issues, and the technology is sort of leading the pace behind the law and all the ethical implications, and I think that's one of the reasons why we've all come together here today. Absolutely. Well, and that's really good points and use cases that are for today. So Susan. So I think it's pretty interesting to watch what's going on in the humanitarian market versus, or in addition to what's going on in enterprise, and I am involved in both sides of it, and one can definitely inform the other, and in fact, a lot of times on the humanitarian side, although there's, I'm going to later redo something from the UN, a person from the UN commented on it, so there's varying views about how valuable it is, but in relation, while it's so vulnerable, has nothing to lose. By experimenting and moving forward, its problems are going to be solved by some version of technology, and so implementing some version of blockchain can actually be really helpful on solving certain logistic problems, perhaps identity problems. So that's where I see it today. Well, and Susan, your focus has been on a blockchain for social good. Can you talk a little bit about that? Well, in some, so I also do some commercial enterprise. I don't want to mislead people. That's my, I started out leading a blockchain, an initiative on identity for the UN called ID 2020 a couple of years ago, which brought together a group of people, about 400 of them, discussing identity for the world's population who doesn't have it. And a lot of the consensus was the solutions would be blockchain based. So I started off in that arena, but honestly, at some point, you would do have to pay your bills, so I had to move to, I pro bono do that. So I just don't want to mislead people that that's what I'm doing 24 seven. I also work on the commercial side. And I do though, in preparation for this, reached out to about 20 different participants that I know who are working on blockchain solutions for humanitarian solutions to get their opinions and pros and cons and things, concerns that they had. So I can report back on that. Well, I have a background as a general counsel. So how has the skill set that you learned as a general counsel moved you into today? Is there any? So yeah, so what I find, lawyers generally, not you, tend to be very tech phobic. And somebody like the UN, when you're talking to policy people or government people or anybody like that, also relatively tech phobic. And being able to be a good explainer, figuring out what your issue is and getting down to it, that's a definite transferable legal skill. And it really helps. And people like, I found that people like that you're a lawyer and that you're trusted because of that, that you're not gonna totally mislead them on something that you're explaining like this, particularly if you take in a technostic view, which I do. So it's those people who can understand technology and make it understandable to the rest of the population are very much in need. And I think further if I was going to recommend it, I've been asked this a lot of young lawyers, well, what should I study, what should I do? And I've been asked specifically, should I learn to code, what will it do, what will it help? And my thought is that it helps with you understanding what your issues are. Because at this point where I do a lot of my consulting, I'm paired with an architect. And I ask that architect every line of code, what he's doing, which way it's gonna go. So maybe I can't write that code, but I can sure as heck tell you if it's gonna violate a law, if it's gonna affect a business process, and what the strategic thinking is down the line. So lawyers by nature, and you can tell me to be quiet, because I don't think, but lawyers by nature think of things, the bad things that go wrong, right? And a lot of times this industry doesn't approach it that way, and it's very valuable to have that kind of thinking and discipline within this industry. I also spend a lot of my career as a general counsel, and the one thing I would say that has occurred to me here today, if we look at all these different solutions to all these different problems, and people say, oh, blockchain, but it actually means all these different things to all these different people, right? Nobody's an expert at every piece of it. And, you know, a general counsel has a role in a company where they have a lot of legal cues, not just a narrow little silo, like a lot of law firm lawyers do. And so if you convey to your clients that understanding blockchain, while it may solve their supply chain problems, it may also have to do with their securities compliance and how they raise funds in the future, and, you know, how they deal with identity issues and compliance with GPR and a bunch of other stuff that's all on their list, you know, understanding for them and helping your clients understand that this can touch a whole bunch of different aspects of their business, don't just one. I think it's really important. Great point. And Michelle, how did you get started in AI and blockchain? I was actually at a cocktail party a few years ago and a bunch of 20-somethings were speaking of crowdfunding and cryptocurrency, and I hadn't the foggiest notion of what they were talking about. And other than feeling sort of aged out of the conversation when I didn't want to feel aged out of it, I thought there's this entire world that is going on. That's not necessarily in the forefront but is becoming part of it. And the more that I looked into it and the more that I researched it, I thought to myself, this is just another revolution. This is the beginning of when I went to college and they gave me an email address and sat me in front of a computer and said, if you type this address in, your friend are first going to read this message and I couldn't fathom what you were talking about or how that was going to possibly happen. But one behold, we all use email like at second nature. And so I think that those of us here in the room today are gonna be sitting here in two years or five years and we're gonna say, wow, remember the issues that we were talking about today? They were so rudimentary, we're so far past that. And it was really just talking to a bunch of 20-somethings at a cocktail party. That's it, that's excellent. Well, let's see, who want to ask this? So as we're looking at businesses that you work with and as they're moving into technologies like AI and blockchain, what concerns do you have? So maybe Susan, you wanna start with them? I think businesses, just like their systems are siloed, their thinking is siloed. And my concern is that one unit might adopt something that affects another one, that people aren't actually having a cross conversation and the technologies, these kinds of technologies are systems or networks. They actually require a cross conversation by virtue of what they do, at least on the blockchain side, AI might be able to get away with it differently. And so the culture hasn't changed. The technology might force the culture change within an enterprise. And I'm concerned that the conversations, when you, anybody who's ever talked to an enterprise, when you have this conversation, the first thing that happens is you get into the tech department. And I've never actually seen a tech department purchase technology. It's always the business people purchasing technology. So the conversations are very siloed, tech oriented, technical, not business model, not ecosystem model. And I think it short-trips what the technology can do and the potential for it. So my concern is the siloing of it in the way it's being presented. Well, do you see risks then? Absolutely. So risk, one of adopting something that you can either go down a wormhole and become a proponent of a particular technology early on in an innovation cycle where a lot of it is developing, or you can just stand back like a lot of them and say, ooh, hype cycle says we're not there. We don't have to worry about it for five to 10 years. And then run to catch up because your systems aren't even close to accommodating what's going on. So there's a huge risk all around for not having that communication. Now, Michelle, what have you seen in your line of work? In terms of risks. In terms of risks and then also concerns you may have with your clients. Sure. I've seen risks in a couple of places. I'm not gonna go into the cyber and privacy risk because I'll hold off on commenting about that for now. But I've seen a couple of risks. First of all, I think there's risks with respect to there seems to be a bit of a race right now. So we're having a lot of clients call and say, I have this idea and I wanna get it to market really quickly. Can you help me with these IP issues? Can you help me with these crowdfunding issues? Can you help me with this, this and this? But the idea is actually not really well thought out. And so that can become problematic. And it's kind of taking a step back and saying, okay, how does this really work? Who are you really servicing? And what problem are you really solving? We've also seen risks from an insurance perspective. Everybody rushes out there to get insurance to cover their business problems, right? And then we have cyber attacks. And so then insurance companies started putting out cyber policies, right? Does yours, if you have blockchain technology, does your cyber coverage actually cover a breach of use of blockchain technology? I mean, that's a really, really interesting and nuanced issue these days. And the other thing we're seeing is with the advent of ICU, everybody wants to create a token lately, but who's gonna buy your token and what's your token gonna do? And you can get a celebrity to say how great your token is, but is your token really great? And is your token gonna be a security? Do you want your token to be a security? Where is it gonna trade? Is it not gonna be a security? Do you need us to help you craft away to avoid that? I mean, there's so many legal issues, but I think you have to talk about the cyber and the privacy, right? Well, so my practice is primarily, my semi-practice is anything that has to do with data, particularly big data, but a lot of what I do these days is privacy and then some incident response, cybersecurity work. The way I got into the blockchain world was that I was on vacation in Hawaii with my parents, with my kids and having a very nice time and I got a call that a client had been involved in a hack that was a big significant theft of Bitcoin, about $72 million worth of value in Bitcoin had disappeared. Actually, it had not disappeared thanks to the blockchain. You could see that it was gone. You could see that it was in 2000 wallets that it wasn't supposed to be in, but you couldn't get it back. And so, several time zones off from all this, I was trying to understand quickly the concepts of sort of immutability and transparency and blockchain so secure, but where's the Bitcoin and how do we get it back? And it's $72 million and do we have insurance for this? Were sort of that question that I was trying to figure out. And so, yes, there are good questions around all of those things. And that sort of sparked my interest in the intersection between blockchain and digital currencies as a segment of blockchain and privacy, anonymity, privacy and security, and then all the way to transparency. All those words get sort of thrown around, but how do they work in practice? Or those are issues that I've spent a lot of time talking to people about. I also, because I practice in Washington and have a data cybersecurity practice, I've spent a lot of time oddly enough in the last year talking about election security and whether elections can be hacked and whether the blockchain or not the blockchain blockchain is the answer to election security. And I think the answer is no, not yet at least. And that the difference, talking about it and helping people understand that immutable transparent record is still not invulnerable if it's hooked up to the internet by human beings. That all these pieces of how you do security and where the keys are and who's holding the keys, all of that can be just as vulnerable and just as hackable as anything else if it's not gone right. So those are the issues I spent a lot of time thinking about. Yeah. Well, and that's always those nice surprises when you're on vacation. This is the worst always happened. The beach looked really nice. My kids told me that it was very nice. I was on the phone for like two weeks. My client finally said, are your kids there with you? I said, yeah, they're jumping off the second floor balcony into the pool, but I think they're okay. That's wonderful. We can get into those mother issues a little bit later as working moms. So I'd like to dig a little bit deeper. So Michelle, as a regulatory lawyer, what are some of the issues that you see specific to regulations that could come up? Sure. I think the biggest issue is that we're not quite sure what the regulation is. In the last probably three or four months we've seen the SEC exercise its arm by issuing very interestingly an investigative report not bringing in enforcement action against the DAO for a token sale saying that the tokens were securities but writing a report and advising the market that, hey, we're looking at this issue and you may be regulated. And actually it was two and a half years before that the SEC had put out an investigative report and that had to do with KPMG. So I thought it was very interesting how they did. And I actually thought it was the proper way to do it because if they had just brought in enforcement action the market would have said, well, wait a second, we didn't know you were looking at this even though they have every right to. And then I think you have the CFTC who's sort of jumping up and down saying, well, but Bitcoin's a commodity. And so we're here too. And then the CFTC has even taken the view that they brought in action against the hedge fund that was dealing in Bitcoin but the fraud really didn't relate to the Bitcoin. And then you have the U.S. Attorney who's dealt with Silk Road and you have the IRS and you just have so many different agencies that are taking hopefully what we will be able to see as consistent views, but not necessarily coordinated. And with a new administration and with the lack of appointments of U.S. attorneys in different jurisdictions with new heads of enforcement in different offices I think it's really going to be, of course, over the back of what Presence that's going to be for the next election. I think it's going to be really interesting to see where it all shakes out. There are countries that say you can't do an ICO here. We haven't taken that position yet and I don't think that we will but we're in sort of a state of flux and that's why these forums are really important because I think the industry needs to come and say, hey, we know there needs to be some boundaries and some standards, but we don't necessarily think that government should do that on its own. Well, as with early regulation of the internet even still regulation of the internet early in developing technologies because or you get them for like 35 years which is basically the current state of a lot of the laws governing hacking and things like that, 1986 laws are still on the books and it's hard to get rid of them. So they often with new technologies, it makes more sense to have a little bit more of a lighter hand on the issuing report rather than enforcement action as to guiding folks about what the rules are going to be. It makes more sense, but it's also a little bit of a no man's land out there. No one really knows what the rules are. So I think that part of the some governments doing sandboxes is a really interesting approach and I think pretty useful. I haven't seen the US government move towards that yet, although I was at a session in July where all the agencies were present and Finra did say something about they were studying to see if they wanted to put a sandbox in. So that kind of environment might be really helpful to do sort of regulation light to see how and they've certainly the agencies have open conversations. They are traveling around and asking for people to come and talk to them if they're proposing an idea. So they're open to the conversation. I think capital formation is something that want to encourage just in a smart way. Well, and Michelle, one of the things that we were talking about earlier was in regards to the concept of intent. And so do you wanna share a little bit with the audience about some of the things we're talking about? Sure, so thus far this panel has been talking a lot about blockchain, but we shouldn't neglect to talk about artificial intelligence. And the legal systems interactions with software and robotics has really focused on intent. It's about the developer. Did the developer really intend to harm anyone? And so if a machine in a factory injures a worker, it wasn't programmed to injure the worker. It was programmed to perhaps throw out some trash, but its arm hit the worker and the worker got injured. And back in 2007, at least one New York court said a worker who was injured, the manufacturer had complied with the relevant regulations and had no intent and therefore wasn't liable. So intent has a lot to do with the way that we code things and the way that the artificial intelligence learns. Yes, absolutely. So Laura, do you? Well, the intent kind of goes too often, sometimes at liability and certainly criminal liability, but then you also get to negligence issues. And part of that, when you look at a lot of these joint ventures where somebody's supplying the AI for a partner to use in their business, where there's sort of two companies coming together with two different, contributing two different pieces to a venture, if you're relying on, say, AI, say a Watson product to do something for your company, you don't, generally speaking, IBM probably isn't going to share exactly everything they have about how Watson learns and how Watson develops. That's their secret sauce, it's their intellectual property. And yet you're sort of trusting that combined product to have good outcomes for whoever it's used for. So I was involved years ago on an AI project that was oncology treatment. So you kind of wanna know that who's programmed this thing? How did it learn? What does it know about treating cancer? Because a bad outcome in treating cancer can be a really bad outcome. And then who's liable for that if it's a combined sort of joint venture, if you're starting to work AI processes into your business. So there's a lot of, you know, there's intent issues, but there are also negligence or just programming or sort of understanding the implications of how AI learned whatever it learned that it's now applying. Well, and would you share a little bit more about your experiences with training AI and what recommendations you would make to everyone? Well, you know, it's, I think for us, and again, this was a number of years ago, and so it was a very early instance of Watson. I think it was one of the very first applications. I think, and I think I'll ask you what you agree with this, but it's harder than you think. It's a longer R&D process. You know, I think it would, I don't know how you tell me how many years it took to train Watson to play Jeopardy. But if you win Jeopardy, that's awesome. If you've become an oncologist while also doing all the things here, graduating from law school, it's a lot of, it's an enormous amount of information and even in machine learning. And it has to be corrected, taught by a human being. If in the instances in which the answer that it comes up with initially is wrong, someone has to tell it that it's wrong. And so there's that line between human intelligence and artificial intelligence. And it's pretty painstaking. And I think if you are, for example, somebody talked earlier about being concerned about the line with AI into unauthorized practice of law. There was a similar concern at least in our effort about unauthorized practice of medicine. And all gets really complicated. Is it, what is, part of it is digesting, ingesting and processing vast amounts of medical literature or whatever it is in the back end. But part of it is actually being corrected and taught by human being. And that's a pretty painstaking process. Yeah. So in Watson, you can read 800 million pages in two minutes. So Watson can read and ingest tremendously fast. But it is, it's the training side of things. And of course, Watson's gotten faster and most artificial intelligence has. But again, it's the human beings having to train the artificial system on how to do the, I guess, their parts of the job that are repeatable. So I have just a couple of quick questions. So all those pages that Watson digests, those are human generated. We'll come with those human biases. So I think about that. That's one thing. There's no AI without context. And the other thing I think about is how do you then as a lawyer in practice actually diligence any of this stuff? Are you hiring a technologist to both go through whatever might have been taken from open source and then you're trying to figure out, where's your standard as a lawyer? What are you supposed to know? And where does that liability come in? Absolutely. Well, I mean, the practice of law is going to change just like many other industries will change because of artificial intelligence now blockchain. So let's see. Kind of looking at the time, just making sure that we have enough time to cover everything. We could, of course, stay up here and speak for hours and hours with your amazing backgrounds. I'd love to take the last 10 minutes or so before actually five minutes before we get to questions and answers. And I have a quote from one of my favorite people. So Jack Ma, the CEO of Alibaba. In the age of AI, women's attention to experience in detail can outperform machine learning, whereas men's traits of rational thinking will be challenged by machines. I see a lot of shaking of heads and nodding. This was his quote, not mine. So let's go ahead and start with Laura. Is it important to have a diverse perspective represented when designing and thinking and training artificial intelligence? I guess my first reaction to that quote is it's a good thing Jack Ma doesn't work at Google. But he's just going right there. But that aside, is it a good thing to have diverse perspectives? I personally believe it is. I mean, partly you're talking about the inherent bias in whatever human-generated information is chosen and is selected to be ingested by a Watson or an AI. There's a piece that's biased that who chooses what the machine should learn. There's also a piece that's biased that even underlies that, which is things like medical studies are often more frequently done, conducted on men than on women because of biological differences and women can get pregnant and all this stuff. So there are lots of reasons why there can be intentional or certainly lots of unintentional hidden bias in the information that is fed to these machines that are going to be running a lot of the world. So yeah, the more diversity and the more thinking about that and awareness of those issues and even just having that be a question in your mind, I think is important so that the results are better. Michelle, your thoughts? Yeah, I think it's a controversial quote for a lot of reasons. But I also think diversity is important in everything we do. So why would it be different in artificial intelligence? I mean, when the best collaborations come, when you have ethnic diversity, when you have age diversity, when you have all sorts of diversity, so I would say it's equally as important to have a women's perspective as to have a 70-year-old or 60-year-old manager's perspective versus a 20-year manager's perspective because they're going to manage differently. And I think that you're going to see AI used throughout not only the legal industry, but also in management in terms of streamlining tasks, scheduling, things like that. And so you have to get those diverse perspectives in everything that you do. Oh, that's an excellent point. Excellent. Now, Susan, you have founded recently She-Tech Power. So I'm guessing that you have a lot to say on the subject. So I founded that to try and further women in STEM, although it's still in formation. So we haven't settled on which our particular first mission is. We've discussed things like I came across a group that was teaching girls to code in Afghanistan called Code to Inspire. And they're literally giving these high school girls a lifeline to figure out how to make some money. And they needed phones. So one of the projects that I wanted to take on was how do we get these high school girls phones. It seems pretty simple, but it's not so simple, because you're dealing with cultural bias. You're dealing with who's going to donate it. You're going to donate in kind. Well, if you donate a phone here, it doesn't mean it's going to work there. How do you get the product there, et cetera. There's a number of things. So even a small project takes a lot of consideration for that. So that's kinds of things that we're trying to look at to try and figure out which way we want to go on that. So a big need and many options, but maybe one use case to start with. Start small, no boiling the ocean here. Absolutely. Well, Laura, what career advice would you give to young female attorneys looking to advance their career in this area? I would say, look, I didn't start out as a tech person really at all. I started as a First Amendment lawyer. And I did a lot of media work. And then when all the media issues went to the internet, like I recruited to go to AOL when it was very early on and fell in love with the technology and fell in love with the incredibly fast evolving business model and all the opportunities and all the different crazy stuff that was going on the internet. And I think, so from that, my advice is be open and be entrepreneurial and learn as much new stuff as you can. I think the law firm model has been for many years to be very deep and very narrow, to be the world's expert on some provision of ERISA or whatever it is, a tax code. And that, I don't think, is going to get you where you need to go in a rapidly evolving tech world. I think you do have to dive in and learn and be open to new things and really thrive on that. Michelle. I think you really need to find something that gives you that sparkle in your eye. I think there's a lot of people here who feel really passionate about a lot of different facets of blockchain and AI. And you're going to be really good and really successful at something. If you can speak passionately about it and if you can communicate that passion to other people, because then those other people are going to buy whatever product from you or they're going to ask for your advice because they know that you're truly invested in it. So if you want to get into this, get into it because you really have a passion for it and then just put your whole heart in it. That's a great point. I think you'll be successful. I think that the biggest thing people face is their own self-doubt. And something to understand about where we are, at least on blockchain, you're in the beginning. It's your game as much as anybody else's game. Three years ago, I founded something called Women in Fintech, which is a LinkedIn group, which anybody's free to join. And I started that by putting recruiting content on it for blockchain because I thought, guess what? Nobody else is touching it. Who says men have to do this? Women can do this too. And by the way, the group is open to men too. It's just that's its name. And 30% of the group is men. It has 1,600 people in it and 47 countries. So my point is you can just do it because it's open. And nobody should say that you can't do it. And your self-doubt is probably your worst enemy on this. Can I just make one comment about self-doubt? And perhaps it'll be an unpopular opinion because of gender bias. But I have found that a lot, and I've read a study that if women look at a list of 10 things and they don't meet all 10 of those qualifications or they don't meet eight of those qualifications, they'll say, I'm not qualified for that job. Whereas a man will look at four of them and he'll say, I got this. I can do this job in my sleep. And so we need, as women, we need to change that. We need to transform that. And when people say to me, not everyone at my firm knows that I know a lot about blockchain, and people walk up to me and say, well, what do you know about blockchain? What do you know about artificial intelligence? I'm like, a lot and more than you. And more importantly, more than you. Right. And then people are open to listening to you. So I 100% agree with what you said. Come here. OK. He's coming up here. Yeah, so we're coming. I know. He's got a great question. Thanks. So part of this panel came from the program committee when we were just noting in several calls, things are broken. And I can barely function in some technical circles because it's all guys. I like guys, but it takes two to be human. And so we're missing half of the cognition. We're missing half of the perspective. We're missing half the ideas. We're missing half of the chemistry from which innovation occurs. And this is wrong. And it's unacceptable. And so we're talking about, well, is there some possible way we could begin to, in this new turn of the wheel with AI and blockchain and there's an energy we can feel, can we, is there something we do that would be different? Because, Sean, we had such success with e-discovery in the 90s and finding an avenue from more gender balance so that at least that wasn't broken. And then you look at the progress incidentally. I'm not saying causation, but look at the correlation. Notice how we have e-discovery? Yeah. Just saying. And so that's what we were asking. So I just wanted to pose the question in a very linear way. Could you tell me the steps to take next in order to fix this now? Yeah. Any ideas to bring more women into the fold? I think. Yeah. Which was a very, very good point. And one of the things he had mentioned, I founded a group called Women in e-discovery. And I was at conferences. And I was tired of being the only woman at the conference. And it was all e-discovery based. I was back when e-discovery first came out, late 90s, early 2000s. And I was the token woman, I would say, on all of the panels. And I would look out in the audience, and not that I don't love men and women. I just would love to see more inclusiveness of everyone beyond even gender. So I started a group. And we had 50 women at the first meeting. Within a year, we had over 2,000 women. Now we're over 5,000 women worldwide. And meet in 30 chapters a month. And talk about different educational issues. And really dive deep into helping other women get to that next level in their career. So we may end up having to do something here. But I think this is a very good step. And what would you, what things do you think we could do to, I hate to say entice more women into this field, but make it an open playing field for them to feel like this is a great career to start down? I'm thinking about my own experiences. I was, as I said, I was at AOL in the late 1990s and early 2000s when the company was the biggest internet company in the world. And I was not that old. And I was the most senior woman or one of the most senior women in the company for quite a while. Because it was, I mean, there's a bunch of books written about this. I'm not the one saying it. It was not the friendliest place for women. And that was, I think, primarily because so much money was being made. The internet has been a gold rush for a lot of people. And what happens when there's a lot of money to be made is if people, you know, men shove women out of the way in order to grab the money. And women are less inclined to do that, by and large, and maybe less able to fend it off. So if, assuming that AI and blockchain are the next gold rush that we've been talking about all day, you know, we have to find ways that it's not quite so ugly that way. And that's really hard, honestly, when money's involved. It's very hard for everyone to overcome those impulses. But I think if you learn from some of the failings of the way the internet developed and how it's the flaws that have come out, and certainly the cultural issues that have come out recently, maybe there's a value that people need to keep in mind from early on to having a more diverse and balanced group developing these technologies, and also in the kinds of problems that we choose to solve with these technologies. Michelle, what are your thoughts? I think that a lot of people don't want to try things that make them uncomfortable, or that they don't understand. And I think women are usually more resistant to that as well. So I think that if there were some sort of educational outreach of just this is a new and innovative field, and if you don't know about it, here's how you can learn. I do a lot of breakfast briefings and lunch and learns that have absolutely nothing to do necessarily with the law, but just to educate people. And I notice that when there are other women in the room, you can't, I'm doing a women in wealth management presentation in a few weeks, because even women who they're stay-at-home moms or they work part-time, like you cannot be ignorant to what's going on in the world. So if you start to educate, if you get 30 women in a room, one of them says, this is really cool. This is really interesting. And now you know just a little bit about it, you can take that and you can build upon it, right? And then you have another person who says, I'm interested, I want to learn, I want to do. Because yes, it's complicated, and I don't know all the code, and I don't know all that stuff, but I understand the basic concepts, and it didn't teach me that long to get there because I wanted to get there. Only person. So that's how I think that you mark it to get women for inclusion. Well, and this is a really good start is having you through here. So do them. So I think it's interesting. So give us our lawyers, right? So women have a better representation in law than they have in technology. And so the women that I've met, I've been around the space for about three years. And where I've met the most women is where it's lawyers who are coming in to do this. And on the technology side, when I've gone to hackathons or even meetups, 270 men and five women, always. So it's not necessarily inviting for somebody to want to come. So maybe a quasi kind of a mentorship, I don't know how a young person is going to come in on the tech side and see somebody who's established they're not running startups per se. There's only a few. So who do you go to as your model then? And who do you have those crazy conversations with that you will just want to have those kinds of casual? What does this mean? Or what should I do? There's just, it doesn't seem to be, maybe there's some kind of more formal mechanism. I don't know what it is, but it's worth the conversation to try and figure out how we get to kind of encourage more young people to come in and to make the people who are older also feel comfortable and like they can learn it as well. Yeah, no, I love the idea of mentors. You know, it's kind of interesting. And in my life, I've been very, very fortunate. I co-lead a practice with Brian. And one of the phrases he says that he probably doesn't realize means so much to me. And he says it all the time and it just warms my heart. He says, we are equal. So when he presents me at any point, he always says that. So I wanna say thank you. So it's been, I appreciate it. So we would love to answer questions. You have three amazing women here who have, I mean, you guys have really pioneered and kind of you can probably even stuck your careers out on the line to jump into this area. So we have a lot of, you're gonna be here today and I'm thinking today and tomorrow to answer questions. So feel free to, you know, bring them aside and ask questions. And, you know, again, if you have the opportunity to call a woman, you're equal or just to bring them into inclusion, we would definitely, as a gender, really appreciate it. He said, thank you very much. Okay. So do we know what to do? So if we move the legal forum forward, we have a plan. You're gonna charge? I guess I am in charge. Okay. Nice. I'm gonna have the women in AI and blockchain who just founded that right now. All right. Okay. That's what's called a success. We want many ventures to be sparked and seated here. This sounds like a terrific one. So please do that. Well, I think you bet you if you want for a time and until you kind of go off and make a trade association or what have you, but we absolutely want to kind of make space for some conversations. Keep going. This one is critical so that we can do this. So thank you. Well, I think it's your inclusion. You're welcome. So, yeah. So it was your excitement that really brought us here today. All right. Well, thanks. It's nice to hear. Okay. Well, let's keep getting excited. So everybody clap. Now we're going to applaud. You guys have microphones? Come on up. Don't wait. Okay. Take your places. Come on up. I think the way we'll do is when, whichever ones are you talking is go up to here. Although Jonathan's gonna need that laptop. Oh, then just have Jonathan up here and you guys talk down there. Right. Okay. Actually, if you just hide back here, like that's it. That's all. So just be ahead of it. There's a secret hatch. You know, it's awesome. I can do it online. If you guys are using this for the presentation. Okay, sit down, sir. Yeah, we are using it for the presentation. So, although after the presentation's done, we want to take the notes. All right, cheers. I'm probably wondering what's happening. Next up is the energy microgrid workshop. And again, what we've decided to do so that no one's competing against one another is, again, if people wanted to see two different, everyone wanted to see two of the same things. We're going to do after this panel we just heard, this workshop in the same room so that we can all participate in it. And then right after that we'll have a quick disco break and get some coffee and what have you. And then we'll just do the report outs from the groups and we've been putting together the notes. Amazing stuff. You're not going to want to miss that. And a little bit of dialogue and agenda setting for the day ahead and identifying some priorities that have surfaced. So with that, I give you Michael Casey to basically commence and set context and kick us off. Michael, your show. Come on, I guess I am. Great, so this is a MIT Media Lab workshop of sorts. Although we have Jonathan Lee here from IDEO CoLab who, any of those who know IDEO, really the masters of the workshop. Although without his little post-it notes, I'm not sure that he can actually function. He's powerless. So well, and we don't even have a whiteboard which is what we would normally use. So we are jury rigging this. He'll be at some point taking notes, but he has to stand. So anyway, but thank you to Jonathan for doing this because to make a workshop work, we kind of want to have an output. Usually it's not this sort of a crowd. It's usually a kind of a closer setting. It's this is a much more of a theater like workshop. So, but we do want you to be interactive and respond. So the way it's going to work is I'm going to just set the scenario that we're talking about. I'm going to then throw it to Dan, who's going to give you a little bit of context about what he's all about. And then Harrison's going to give us the C4 coin perspective and you'll see what that is at the time. But then we'll open it up and we want to sort of try to grapple with some of these core potential legal challenges that may exist. As I said this morning, I'm looking for some pro bono help here. So anyway, this is the reality. I have some time been working on the role that blockchain can play in the advancement of solar energy, in particularly in the context of micro grids and decentralized structures for energy. We were initially very interested in the idea of how we would use the blockchain as a way to potentially collateralize or securitize claims on a grid and sell that as a right in some way either as a form of collateral for a loan or as a claim separately. And therefore maybe unlock financing, make it available for developing countries and off-grid communities and so forth. And we've continued to look at that but what's come up more recently and particularly I've been working with a guy called Harvey Michaels from Sloan who is an expert in IoT and smart grid technology. And he has this concept of energy democracy and he's looking at the economics of centralized electricity systems versus decentralized systems and how we can use these emergent technologies particularly IoT and obviously home-based solar generation capacity to really extract much more value for users and for the grid generally. And we've been looking at the role that the blockchain can play in all of this. And most importantly, we think its role sits within this transactive capacity because the key point here is that you need a market signal to run a grid efficiently and that's the case for large scale electric grids and decisions will be made on which generation plant to use based on how efficiently they run and at least a well run grid and they're not always that well run. But if we can bring this idea of the market signal right down to the home level so that not only am I able to decide potentially and maybe you're doing this in a fully automated way with a smart contract that runs in the house on whether or not to have my television on at a certain time of day or when I'm gonna charge my, I would say Tesla car but I don't have one and don't expect to have one for a while. But these questions will become critical the more smart IoT devices that we have and the more we can integrate this in money in this context becomes a signal. One of the interesting things about cryptocurrency or digital money generally is that it has, it's not just this neutral universal form of expression of value it actually is loaded with code. So money can actually turn things on and off and we can start to imagine how the grid might respond to flows of payments and the like through this structure. Anyway, that's the kind of context I've been talking about it with him pushing towards this idea of energy democracy the idea being that the more you empower individuals and communities to make energy decisions on their own the more value we can extract and that again would include whether or not to add an extra couple of solar panels because I can sell that more readily because there's a market emerging in that thing. It is a very much of a decentralized vision one that is built upon the idea that I can sell to anybody it's not about the grid or the utility setting the price for me. Anyway, so this is the context and then we were often looking at the Caribbean as a place to do this because as many people know it's island economies, particularly those in the Caribbean have already very expensive and broken centralized systems. 35 cents, 40 cents a kilowatt hour these are fairly expensive grids as they are and they suffer from as we now know we should have known serious problems vulnerabilities with regards to their centralization. So this was all made all the more apparent with the hurricanes Maria and Irma that if you take for example the US version islands where we're looking to do a pilot the generation plant exists solely on St. Thomas and then they transmit power through submarine cables to the other islands and so and the further you get away from that plant obviously the further you have to go with that but the hurricane came through wiped out the grid, wiped out the plant the whole island goes down. There's no resiliency from the decentralization which is a core concept of the way we're now thinking about what an ideal grid would look like. So we have an opportunity to say, all right let's build better. Let's not just go back and rebuild the old diesel generated fossil fuel burning centralized system that's costing you all this money to import that fuel and run it. Let's think of how we could and that we think lies in this capacity to making power around their own energy use and generation. So we are going to Colbay where Andy Lippman actually has a home he's just gotten back from there the places just trees everywhere and all the power lines are down and there's no power. And we're going to just build a grid we're going to find some homes give them panels, get them some power walls, potentially from Tesla. We have some backers in this and just say to them, look lines amongst yourselves and see if we can figure out how you would trade amongst each other. So they're getting a free solar and battery the cost they pay is they have to agree to a little experiment. And so that's the context. We want to build this thing see what we can build the idea of being potentially what would we learn from the behavior? What would it lead to better efficiencies and gains would it incentivize others to join? Can we imagine a company organically growing grid emerging out of this bottom bottoms up grassroots approach? There are of course though big questions about this and again from a legal perspective. So what happens when the public utility finally makes its way across St. Thomas and then St. John and finally lands there and the power is back on how do we interface with it? What should we, what is the relationship? A lot of the regulatory framework for early spaces are defined by this centrality of that utility. If we can think of financing for these things how do we an ownership of this shared common infrastructure? How do we define the rights and obligations? What is ownership of that grid? A whole host of questions around how and what the contractual obligations of all the players are within this. We need to think about who is responsible for the metering? What is the obligation of the owner? And in fact maybe Dan that's a good segue to you because you can give us a sense of how we're gonna understand the veracity of the data, the actual integrity of the information which is gonna be critical to the way this thing runs and the role that your model has plays in all of that. So please pick it up from there. This is Dan Harples of CEO of Context Labs. Is this good? Can you hear me? Yeah, can you? It's working, does it? Yeah. It's good. Okay, great, thanks Michael. Yeah, so everyone came here to this event that Daz put together at MIT and I think one of the things you expect at MIT is just thinking about how is it actually going to work? You know, like how does it become real? So my challenge which I don't know if I'm gonna actually be able to do it is to bridge sort of the esoteric nature of blockchain virtualization with physical assets and virtual assets and talk about how you can do it. And I think the great thing here is a project that Michael's doing with the solar grid. But so I took this perspective which is kind of to incite a conversation about what's required this idea. How do we actually put together a framework for on-demand solar microgrid? And then next, plugging in using blockchain technologies and talk about some components and things for this. My company's called Context Labs. These are the kind of things we work on. We use blockchain as a component, not as a panacea and we take a systems view. So what I wanna talk about here is the systems view for what Michael's talking about. But the purview I had on this was more so if you were the United Nations or you were a benevolent United States and you wanted to actually get power running fast in Puerto Rico, what would you do with solar? This is the purview I've taken. And at the same time, I realized this is about the future of law. So my challenge, not as a lawyer but as a researcher and engineer is to blend it in to the law. And I think there's an element here that ties into the way a lawyer would look at this. Cause I think there's some, this technology has some bearing on in, so I've been involved in some litigation and been deposed and things. And I learned about facts and circumstances and things like that. Totally not a lawyer, but I think this technology can actually impact the way litigation happens and the way you look at what a fact is, okay? So that's really the purview of what I'm talking about. So this idea, how can we rapidly deploy a solar grid? I love the fact that, you know, you're doing St. Thomas, my in-laws lived in St. Thomas for 30 years. So in Red Hook, that got decimated also. So this idea, I mean, everyone's talking about blockchain but what technologies do we need to integrate besides blockchain and how do all these systems interoperate so that it'll work and do the kind of things that Michael's envisioning here. And also I think in the process of doing it, regulations can be totally disintermediated. So let's think about what Uber did. You know, Uber didn't go in and ask permission to decimate the New York taxi badge system, right? They didn't do it. And I think the way technologies advances, people do things, they don't go ask for permission first. And so another part of the purview on this is that it's looked at from the ground up. So a great example, and if anyone's around, you know, before the weather gets too bad, I would offer people a field trip to go to this little island off our coast called Cuttyhunk. I've been going there since I was a little boy and they now have a micro solar grid. For years, if you go back in time, houses had their own generators and it was a real hassle to get the oil there, basically diesel fuel or number two oil. And then what they did is the evolution of that was they put in a powerhouse, which had large caterpillar diesel engines, which were really loud, cost a lot of money. They always broke down, the power was always going out. And that's because they had basic power lines up and it blows like crazy. I mean, it blew 75 knots out there last night. Clearly stuff would have fallen down. The next evolution was to go in ground. And now what they've done in the last few years is they put in place a solar micro grid. So this gives you a sense of the scale, right? So the purview I've got is how do you deploy it on demand? So if this is a small island or basically at 175 electric meters, you can see the peak demand, 250 kilowatts. It's battery storage, there's inverters and it costs about $1.2 million. So that's a little island, okay? That's the scope we're talking about. And I bring this up in the context of Harrison's talk about tokens. Because tokens are, in a sense, a representation of value that often is talked about as a digital value that's traded. But I also think there's a possibility to backstop that value in a hard asset in sort of the cap excisation of these kind of efforts. If we could get institutions to actually invest in this, we could essentially productize these things. Think about at MIT again, right? How do we put this thing on a skid or in a container and ship it? Tens of thousands of them are on the world. I think it's totally doable. Blockchain's a component for it. So now I'm gonna kind of transition to like a data model for the blockchain bit. So I see it as a key component for the Solar Microgrid platform in the sense that you've gotta actually deal with all the data. So as a backstop, the way I like to talk about how blockchain fits is that every single thing is interconnected. And I know Sandy spoke earlier, everything's a network graph. There are nodes in their edges and they're all interconnected. Not only in the solar model are individuals in their houses interconnected. And this is the beauty of this. It brings it from the ground up and merges it with some technology. But also the systems they deploy are interconnected. So you've got a solar panel. It's got an output function. There's probably a PLC on that that has some data that data plugs into some type of system that does monitoring probably to a battery system with an inverter. Those things are all ledger events. Every single thing is a ledger event. And blockchain is all about a ledger, right? So how do we actually combine these things? I think sort of like from an engineering point of view. So what are these things, right? So this idea, what's the data model for a physical and digital asset and all data has a state? So what I like to say about our company, it's called Context Labs is that, we like to make physical, virtual and virtual physical and blockchains a mechanism to do that. So this could be drawn as a network graph. When I say physical, it goes down to literally the cement pad that you may put in as your foundation to hold the housing for your solar panel, right? There's the mechanical stuff because typically the solar panel, these grids have kind of like a servo that follows the sun and you get about 30 to 40% more capacity out of that, right? Obviously electrical stuff. The connectivity, I think one of the things that everyone seems to forget is that if you're going to use blockchain, you're sort of assuming you've got connectivity on the internet, you know? So to me, this is sort of like the big ah-ha after I did this, I was thinking, okay, even Puerto Rico, we just shipped, you know, 40 containers to do solar micro grids but there's not Wi-Fi, you know? So like, how are you gonna do this? The distribution component, there's human components like identity, who owns the property, things like that. There's a bunch of legal stuff and cost and fees. So this idea, remember, everything's interconnected and all the data, this all represents data or metadata and it all has a state. So as we go, this is where I think I can help transition this to what the legal connotations are because you can see that to deploy this, I think the way to step away is say, okay, we are shipping containers of on-demand solar micro grids to places that need them. Okay, when you do that, there's a bunch of data, right? So all this data comes together, you know, you've got the environmental data, you've got the sensor data, the geospatial data, you know, where is it? So if we're trading, if I've got the house next door to you and I'm trading it, how does the system know that I'm me and you're you and your house and I'm me and my house and that I'm actually trading energy that I derive from my panel and not their panel over there. I mean, it's a matter of trust. And what we do is like as a society, we seed trust to ever source, right? To the power company. We seed trust to government. Well, in chaos, who does, you know, so I think this is another thing that you can use the blockchain for as a vehicle to pull these things together. So this idea that you've got the peer-to-peer solar microgrids, I think this is what Michael's talking about in St. Thomas and this framework that I'm talking about, you can use technology to define trust and Michael mentioned this idea about veracity. We always talk about the veracity of the data, the provenance of the data and the security of the data. If that stuff's in place, you can have a trusted trading network and then you can exploit tokens, okay? But if you have no trust, tokens will not work. And blockchain as an element in and of itself cannot ferret out a lack of trust. When you engage, you must have some form of trust and it starts with people. I have like one or two more slides. This idea of how do you assemble the data? And this, I think, inter... What was that? I don't trust the Media Lab staff anymore, so. It really was? I know what I'm chasing to the man behind the curtain. It was too bright in here for him, he's going for it, yeah. Okay, I completely lost my train of thought on that one. Okay, now we're shipping containers of mousetraps? Or what did we take? Sorry. Sorry, yeah, carry on. I just thought of how to design a new mousetrap, sorry. Okay, so here's the thing to think about. The element that I just mentioned before with Michael at his house, with his solar panel, and me at my house with mine and the neighbor, these things are all nodal data and they're interconnected by a relationship. What you can do with the blockchain technology and basically encryption technology is bind multiple data sources together. And in our company we call this proof work. So we could essentially say for Michael's solar implementation at his house, his situation, there's an array and all the panels have serial numbers. Those actually get bound into an encrypted ID for those. There's a PLC that manages and controls what it is. That's encrypted so we know that it's yours. All these things get bound together into a thing which is Michael's deal. Okay, I'm trying to keep it really simple. And I know because all those things were bound together with encrypted hashes as a component that when he offers his energy up on the mesh, I can trust it. And I can trust the fact that you didn't actually hijack it from the poor guy down the road. So this is where the data model matters and it's where you think about what we're talking about here, we're talking about innately physical things. The sun comes down, hits solar panels, we make electricity. Is that another one? Oh, I swear to God. I'm seeing things now, Dan. Okay, I have to stop talking. So hopefully you're getting the point here that we can use this technology, the data technology and the data frameworks as important as the physical stuff. And we put all that stuff together, we can create a trusted network, a trusted mesh that sets the stage for essentially virtual currency and digital currency. But these things all come together, like when you ship the container of stuff, the on-demand solar microgrid, these things need to be in place and the layer inside that platform is all this stuff that makes the data important. So that's my tee up for Harrison. And Harrison can actually extend this now to discussion about tokens and the ephemeral token discussion. Let's do it. Thank you. Hi everyone, I'm Harrison and I'm co-founder of C4coin. And today I'm gonna be talking about specifically how these blockchains can be implemented and then the relevant law that might have impact on how these tokens are, who owns these tokens and what regulations they need to comply with as well as who owns the network. And so I'm gonna do that first by talking about what are crypto assets then going through the law and then comparing the different implementations. So one of the things that I liked that Christian did this morning was he pointed out how the blockchain is this term that people use a lot. And I think cryptocurrency is somewhat similar. I like to refer to these as crypto assets. I think it's a broader sense. And what I can say within crypto assets is that they have various features such as you can have tokens that represent ownership, tokens that have contractual rights, tokens that allow you to make use of the network and these various attributes make these crypto assets behave either more like a security or more like a currency. And depending on those attributes, they may be regulated by the SEC as a security or by FinCEN, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network as a virtual currency. So the SEC recently did an investigation of the DAO which in which I'll go a little bit more into that in the next slide, but that represents the way that the SEC is looking at crypto assets and how they determine whether an asset is a security. And FinCEN actually back in 2013 is when they issued guidance on what is a virtual currency and what are the roles that someone can play in a virtual currency network. So in this investigation into the DAO, the SEC actually put out an investor bullet and advising people not to invest in crypto assets because they're not protected by US securities law. And what they did was they said, we did an investigation of the DAO and the assets that they sold were deemed to be securities. So they only made a determination about one particular token. And I thought it was a pretty reasoned approach and what was important was in that approach, they were basically saying that they're able to determine whether a token is a security solely based on law written in 1934. So they don't need any additional act to figure out whether a token is a security or not. And anyone issuing a token really needs to be careful about whether they have SEC regulation. And so as an example for Michael's microgrid, if a token represented one's ownership of the infrastructure between these microgrids that might be represented as a security. So these are some of the issues that would arise from developing tokens for a solar microgrid. When it comes to FinCEN, they talk about three network roles which are either, well, sorry, excuse me. They first define a virtual currency and I think it's kind of an amazing definition. Really the only thing is that it doesn't have all the attributes of real currency. And so it's very vague how they look at it, but what's important here is what role you have in the management of that currency. So users are generally exempt from all bank secrecy act and anti-money laundering compliance, but as soon as someone becomes an exchanger or an administrator of a virtual currency, they have to comply with these FinCEN rulings. And so it's important when you think about implementing these blockchains when someone might come into the role of being an exchanger or an administrator of the virtual currency. So talking about the different types of implementations, really what you have are a range of private blockchains to public blockchains and in between is this thing called a consortium. So on a private blockchain, you have all the nodes and users are pre-authorized. This is, there's some kind of protocol by which people are brought onto the network. And the benefits of this centralized system are that you can manage transactions a lot faster. The types of attacks that this network is vulnerable to are similar to what computer systems put up with today. One of the more important things is that it's easy to update it and change the terms of how that network works. So it's an amenable system, but there's almost definitely an administrator whenever you have a private blockchain. And if you're issuing tokens, then this person would have to be compliant with anti-money laundering and bank secrecy act compliance. When you come into the consortium, the main difference here is that you're still having authorized nodes, but you're letting anybody come in and join the network. So this one is a little bit of a quasi scenario because it all depends on what are the terms of that consortium. And so it's, this one to me is a very major legal gray area where it's difficult to determine whether anyone would have to be an administrator of a consortium. And that would be totally dependent on who the members of that consortium are and how they decide to manage who is allowed to add new computers. And so I'd say that this is an interesting model where you could probably avoid that role, but it's not as clear. Whereas in a public implementation, the major trade-off is that it's a lot slower, a lot more expensive to operate it, and it's a lot harder to update it as well because you have to convince everyone on the network to run your new software. And the benefit though, is that it's much easier to avoid the administrator role because there's no ownership of the network, there's no entity, it's just kind of people running software on their computers. And that lack of any centralized control is how existing blockchain implementations have been able to so far avoid this regulation. And I think what's important to remember when we're looking at this solar microgrid project is these implementations can be used in conjunction. So individual meshes can run a private blockchain, but they can interface to a larger public blockchain between the meshes. And so when we think about how this system could be implemented, it's just, I think, a great practice to avoid having to comply with extremely expensive regulation. And these are the different ways that those implementations interface with these regulations. So we had a few further questions. And I don't know if... This is not as good. I feel like we still need to just tie a few of the lines together because they're in the initial conversation around the distributed grid that I gave just looked at, literally just tying these people together and creating a trading environment. I see the token component of this in a number of ways. One is that it can be just an expression of the data that's being generated in this process and an expression of the rights that are attached to that. And so we could just have a tokenless trading environment where there is just a distributed ledger of some sort or maybe even a centralized ledger that's run by a consortium or the like across this grid and a series of payments made in whatever currency we want, hopefully one that is fluid and has all this sort of capacity to be digital in the way it's exchanged. But once you have a token as an expression of the value that's contained in that ledger, you're buying a right to a flow of energy. And then that becomes really interesting when we start to think about whether or not we want to take that outside the network, particularly if this thing has a floating value so that if somebody else were able to buy this or securitize it in some way, just take it as collateral, then we start to imagine whether or not we could sell carbon credits against them, for example, or obtain other forms of financing, crowdfunding mechanisms and so forth because there is this token that is a claim on the grid that can reside in terms of that ownership claim outside of that community and you're bringing the finance in, which then raises I think some questions around, do you then need a public system? Because does the outside investor need to trust the administrator of the private network if that's not the case? And it may be that that's where this meshing of the two comes in. So I think that's just one thing to think about, how that can play out. And the other thing I'll just say about that, that value proposition is, so we're trying to think about how an energy democracy grows organically. This is a bottom up way of thinking about building a grid. We'll gang a few houses together, get them to share and trade, see what happens. How do you then get others to join in? Well, it may be that this token that they are generating and sharing amongst themselves starts to gather value in some way. It becomes an expression of the value that they are creating through this collaborative exercise. And it then becomes an incentive for others. It becomes the external price signal that we're looking for others to join in. So it's possible, and these are just utopian visions perhaps, but that we could think of the token as this means of tying all these systems there. Are we getting attacked by a plague right now, are we? Is it one, two, five, 10, 100? Just one. One lost mouse. How about, I can't compete with a mouse. It's completely direction. It's got, yeah, I don't know where I'm at right now. What are we talking about again? Mouse traps. Mouse traps, yeah, build a better mouse trap. That's the point here. Anyway. Blockchain. There's always a blockchain for that. So that's just the way I think, to me, that's how some of this stuff comes together. But I think it does raise a whole host of fascinating questions. And I don't know, should we just open it up to you guys for questions, ideas, suggestions? Yes, up the back there. So three, I don't know if you guys know Bruce Norman at Lawrence Berkeley Labs. That was an IHF, I think about two, three years ago. I worked on the Power Matters, which was an IHF, we essay group that is looking at personal problems. And one of the things that I think we struggled with, well, maybe two sets of problems. One was, how did Denominate whatever the unit of exchange was? I think there's a lot of value in that space for this. But the other problem, and Bruce really talked to this a lot, maybe there's a separate element there that's the market element. Because we haven't talked about a physical layer at all. Whether or not it's 75 watt DC and it's at some level of reliability. Could you use the mic, please? Oh, sorry. And whether or not it's just an AC stream coming out of the transformers, there needs to be some unit to make it a commodity. Otherwise you're dealing with various sort of messy transactions between that. And so the question was whether or not you needed sort of a market separate from essentially the unit and the currency exchange. And that sort of begs the question a little bit about how the physical layer comes into play. Because I think your experiment will be really, really interesting, but in fact it is expensive to connect houses together. And it is currently the case that there are barriers to connecting into the existing electricity grid and trying to overlay on top of that markets that are independent. So I'm curious, it sounds like you guys are gonna do solar, power wall. Are you planning to run cable across? Have you thought about the synergies if you're gonna do that with pulling fiber as an element and thinking about the risk of not only capital but the risk of revenue as part of that marketplace? Because I think you could see this being rural electrification. We're still struggling with broadband in a lot of areas. And one of the things is how to couple with electricity. Oh, sorry. Yeah, a lot there. I mean, yes, basically that's what we're thinking about and the idea of creating a separate market on top of that and basically looking for ways to express what that unit is. Certainly aware of the cost, but it is about, I think, how do we again capture the value? Because the value to me is more than just the fact that you don't have a renewable source versus an old source, the fact that you may have a little bit more security over it. I think it has to do with the economic opportunities that start to emerge out of collaborative cooperative ventures that I think often about rural communities, if now I'm able to just quickly spin out a new panel and an extra storage capacity, could I then think of adding an irrigation system to this and do I now have Wi-Fi that can be added to that? And so how does this evolve into kind of an economic development plan and how do we capture that value to the same point? Because it's kind of a community asset in a way. And these are big questions. Daniel, any thoughts? Yeah, I think in a clarification I want to make is a delineation between what blockchain is and what a token is. And what I talked about was more blockchain as a component for an infrastructure layer that actually gets to the physical layer. And there could be a tokenization of that to literally have an asset security-based token to pay for that. So that's the reason I brought up the island of Cuddehunk. I think it was $1.4 million and it's exactly what you said. I mean, it's an AC-based system. I mean, Edison had a battle on this what, 150 years ago or something. And there's got to be an element, I think blockchain as a component allows the certification and the integrity and the trust and all the data that we've got so that then I think we can overlay the token system that can actually commence trading and do all these other things. So I just want to highlight those two differentiators. Even though, I mean, at some level what's happening is you've got an amount of blockchain implementations that have to interoperate, you know? And that's still a big industry problem in how you do that. We're trying to do that music with the open music initiative to create an interoperable layer. So in your question, there's an infrastructure layer that's also got to come up, right? To interface to all the other layers which may have different types of token structures on top of them. We should show a stack right now. So everyone knows what you're talking about. We'll figure this out as we go. Looks like there's one more and we want to start to transition to a glorious future shortly. Okay. So much of what you've described in many ways seems to mirror the agricultural cooperatives that were developed and they encountered, you know, recognizing the difference in technology but they encountered many of the same problems along the way, which gives you a couple of things. One, there's a well-developed body of law that you're moving into. So you're not trying to recreate or create a whole new area of law. They've also addressed many of the sort of cultural social problems of working within that structure and even some of the, you know, making sure that all the milk will go together and it's the same quality, et cetera, is the predecessor, we'll say, of the new technology. So I would think that if you looked to something like that, the cooperatives had to connect into public systems at times because the processing had to go on and then flow into the milk supply chain. I'm using milk as an example. It just, much of what you're describing mirrors that environment but with a new commodity within the system. And so it seems like you would at least get a substantial step forward in trying to figure out how to deal with this, the securitization, the regulation from that area. To the rural electric cooperatives fall within that same framework as well or is that something separate from that? They're a bit different because they weren't dealing with generation from many areas that was still a centralized generation of the power, but then sending that out within an area. The agricultural commodities had to deal with the fact that they had 1,000 producers of milk that could range from a small farm to a larger farm or other ag products. And then how do you bring those in? What's the cooperatives serve the purpose of consolidating, of ensuring quality, doing other types of supervisor activities and they may have transportation, et cetera. So it's more the 1,000 points generating than the rural electrification entities were. And Land of Lakes is sort of the example that everybody knows of the old ag cooperatives. Okay. Really helpful. I'm sorry, Land of Lakes is an example of what kind of co-op? The old agricultural cooperatives. So they started as every farmer has got cows, they all have milk, bring it all together, and et cetera. Thank you. That's really helpful. And may I ask, cause this is the next thing that's gonna happen when everyone goes home is people are gonna ask me, like for models and examples, and I don't have many of those. I have other co-ops. I do very little with ag, although sometimes the Midwest would come to, we talk to them about all the centers from John Deere and some other stuff and a bit of vague understanding, but this is not a big ag state nor some where I'm from before. Could I trouble you for some of those models, just to get examples that are pretty good and capture what you already know about the distinctions you were just bringing up so we can have a shot at evaluating them and maybe who knows, testing one out if it's a fit and the Caribbean. Sure. Would you share that? Thank you, I appreciate it. Cause I know I don't know that and I'd like to. Thank you. Sure. Do we have time for one more? Do we have time for one more? Yeah, we have time for one more. I'll be back there. Rob Millard from Cambridge Strategy Group in the UK. This is not to do with blockchain directly. It's a technical thing, but this intersects rather well with some of the initiatives in Africa in areas that are not electrified at all, where it's a virgin supply that's been put out and rather than putting high voltage lines across the countryside, authorities are looking at regional supplies which regions not much bigger than a Caribbean island. And also I just observed that a lot of the appliances that you find in a household, apart from heating appliances are 12 volts or less, sometimes substantially less, DC not AC. The reason for DC is to be able to transmit electricity across long distances. So you don't need it if you're a local, if you're generating locally. Yeah. One model that's also in Africa that we've looked at is the, so M-Pesa in Kenya has pioneered a kind of a prepaid infrastructure model whereby, and actually M-Pesa is the, of course is the currency, and Kopa as I'm referring to is the company that's doing this. And they are providing one or two panels and a kit basically to these homes. And it's the least to own model and you just pay so long as you're paying with your M-Pesa currency that is being read like a smart contract. Your light stay on if you stop paying then the lights go off and it's such a point where you've paid enough you end up taking ownership of that device. And so it's a simple straightforward relationship between M-Kopa, the provider and the homeowner. But there's an interesting way to think about whether or not you could scale that and take those claims as some sort of securitizable asset and then take them off M-Kopa's books and sell them as some sort of collateralized loan obligation of some sort that would then free up more capital and you could build a more kind of scalable larger model on based on it. I know that's a bit of a diversion for what you're saying but I think Africa is truly being, there are some good experiments being done around these kinds of ideas within the continent for sure. Yeah, I think M-Pesa is very relevant to this and 30% of the Kenyan economy is traded through cell phones basically because M-Pesa is basically a mobile phone trading mechanism, a currency banking mechanism. And to this case, it's programmable money. That's the thing. Exactly, yeah. Yeah, awesome. All right, so this seems like a very sorry, are you satisfied? Did you get the pro bono? Like when I walked in it sounded like you're getting good stuff. I've got one there, I've got my ad co-op. Put it on my back pocket, yeah. Okay, and then did everybody learn about basically how to verify the fundamental nature of reality and facts that happened, events that occurred? I was going there when the mouse ran across this. Yeah, I lost my turn. That is cute as little, very friendly. This fellow mammal, come on. You just let him out of your pocket at some point. All right. What's that one? And Harrison, where are you? So did we extrapolate to could we get some more revenue and what would be the inputs and outputs from having basically encapsulating some of the value of this energy production in a way that could be ingested to a like an offset or a carbon registry? Did that come up? It didn't. You guys were cheated. So there's a lot of facets here. You can't squeeze everything in, you go where the conversation goes, but one thing for later that we can discuss is once you capture this value and you encapsulate it in some way that's verifiable, there's not just secondary markets, you batch it together like a security in its own right or bastardize it some like some kind of derivative, but there's actually this can be the outputs of this can be inputs in other ecosystems that have completely different takes on this. They're not trying to own and bill for energy to turn the lights on. They may have other goals and objectives and valuations related to carbon footprint. And there's these other markets where this data could be incredibly useful and a lot of other municipal and open data and like resource allocation on and on and on. So I guess we'll leave everyone a little bit hungry for that as possible future topics. So here's what's gonna happen next. Everybody in this sequence, everyone's going to clap for the panel and then we're gonna stand up and we're going to go and just get a quick break, a refreshing cup of coffee or whatever you need to do. And then we're gonna come back in here and we're going to wrap it. We're gonna synthesize it all together. Together is how we're gonna do that. So does that sound good? Yeah, okay. So then everybody clap. Dan Harple, Michael Casey, Harrison Croy. Champions. In the mouth. In the mouth. A little bit of a break here in the room in about, I don't know, perhaps around a few minutes, five minutes or so, we'll be gathering back again for the closing plenary. So if you have been watching, looks like we've got a few viewers out there, quite a few. And you have something that you want to contribute. Hashtag is, and we'll have some, if you want to say hi. The person has actually been making it large and possible for online media. There he is, Chris Bermond Lane, incoming chair of Massachusetts Legal Hackers, great collaborator, blog.mit.edu. And I was just saying, hashtag is MIT Legal Forum. And when we look to monitor that, I'll check it up on the screen. So if you have any ideas, questions, comments, but we're losing viewers. Or just kick back, relax, have a beer. You know, I don't want to stress you out. And we'll get started again in about a few minutes, very few minutes, so, stand by. You don't have to give me all the money. So I need to just check up the food here. Real fast. Should we turn the lights up a little? It's like nap time in here, huh? Yeah. Okay. And now we begin the closing plenary of the first day of the MIT Legal Forum. And so this is primarily a time to hear from everybody in a facilitated way about experiences today, the idea of the future, and questions, connections, priorities that we can surface to help evaluate the day, synthesize it, digest it a little bit. No heavy lifting, just talking. And then also set some priorities for tomorrow, where we've got a number of breakout session possibilities and maybe some sort of, I don't know, some sort of, a number of breakout session possibilities and maybe some sessions and dialogues that want to happen, but don't have a session for it right now. And then also maybe to look ahead, like out over the horizon and consider some of the bigger picture here of maybe some strategic or more like bigger epiphanies that people may have had, which they can communicate now. This is going to be a short session because we have a reception right outside that it's gonna be starting, they'll start setting up imminently with some sumptuous food and some drinks. And we can chat and seems to me like I'll start, I call it myself. One of the best things about today has been how much people, including me, have enjoyed being out there. It's like it's hard to pull oneself away and come back in here. There's amazing things happening in here. But fundamentally, people want to talk. And that tells me that, I'd say, validates a hypothesis, if you want to put it that way, this hunch that there's a there there for, I think it was Brian that actually helped us settle on the word forum. It's a word that's a good word. It's not a conference, it's not a there's a center and there's other words you could use. But fundamentally, when I hear forum, I think a discussion forum like the Greco-Roman forum, a place where people can come together and talk, deliberate to some extent. It's a social place. It's a common place. It's a civic place. It's a somewhat open place. And in a certain way, it's kind of a safe place. But that's the intention at least to conduct dialogues and to listen and to talk and to move forward. So I think everyone wanting to go to talk has been terrific and to connect and to find out what one another's doing. There's a format that this is getting close to called unconference format. And it's based on this concept that all the great stuff happens out there. What if we just made the conference out there, basically. And I go to a number of these things in California for Internet Identity Workshop. How many people are Internet Identity Workshop people here? Can I just show you hands? Smattering of people. So it's not that cultural. How many people Web of Trust? Any sort of the same people, okay. So there's this very different method. It's more West Coast I think that there's ways to have not just disorganized but ways to kind of structure and have processes to have the types of more, let's call it self-organizing conversations that people were really enjoying out there and to start to harness the benefit from them and share that and to make progress that maybe I'm thinking could be a good fit for this crowd. The other observation I would make to get started is that I like the mix of people here. And David, where's David Fisher? Oh, there you are. The lights kind of put words to a few minutes ago but I felt it maybe some of you did too that this balance of people who are interested in blockchain and people who are interested in AI from a legal kind of grounding is a successful balance. It's a beneficial balance. And I'm not sure how many folks here go to like blockchain things but it can become quite intense in certain ways and AI things as well. It's very particular with the jargon and so forth. There's a balance here that has helped keep open communication and open minds. And then therefore open the possibility for connection I think in ways that are entirely beneficial. And as applied to law, this is perhaps the kind of attitude and atmosphere that we need to understand and to catalyze the sort of deliberate systemic change that's needed to kind of get through from this paper paradigm to digital. So those are two things that I wanted to say I noticed. And I wanted to ask, there's a few people out there but I'd asked Bob Craig for starters to join me to just elicit feedback from people. And we decided because it's been, it was a big day I think everyone's a bit drained from the podium and the mic and stuff that we're not gonna do formal report outs at the end of today. Also we need to wrangle things a little bit more. There's an astonishing variety of formats and so forth. So we're gonna kind of get that together and make sure that that's well known and socialized tomorrow and at the end of tomorrow with more groups. And instead we just wanted to use today to surface on what's on people's minds. And Bob has such a mellow mature personality that I think he's just the right guy to do it. So I nominated him. Thanks Bob. That's just another way of saying I'm old and tired. So this, I hope everybody agrees in your own way. This has been a terrific day. I have been as somebody in 26 years invested in the legal industry, I've probably attended I'm just gonna say thousands of conferences over those years. And this was one I was both most excited about and in a way terrified about all at the same time. Excited because with the research we've been doing and exploring as it relates to what's going on in the legal industry and of course I'm with a private law firm, a big thing. And there's all sorts of new and exciting and transformative and disruptive technologies that are more closely intertwined with the very nature of the practice of law and certainly how law gets done with our clients. New, it's happening fast. And as soon as we learned, I learned that MIT Media Labs had an acute interest in well the fact that they have a program called future law was intriguing and of its own right. So this idea of these emerging technologies, the fact that they're going to have a transformative and my favorite phrase is, it's only transformative if you're paying attention. If you're not, it's disruptive. So I want my law firm to be the ones paying attention to be able to employ these transformative technologies to the betterment of our clients. And so so many times in the legal industry, though, we are catching up to emerging technology. And that's even from an operational standpoint, not just the practice of law and lawyers catching up to issues around emerging technologies. I think blockchain and AI is out in front on this. It's different in terms of A, what's possible, at least at which it's going to emerge onto the scene and become real and be transformative or disruptive. So what I'm enamored with is this notion of getting the legal ecosystem around a table to begin to imagine and have conversations about what's possible and to be more predictive if it's certainly anticipatory around what's going to happen in a space. And wouldn't it be amazing if we get kind of this from law firms, we get lawyers from corporate counsel, legal tech providers from the startups all the way up through the largest, including Thompson Reuters of the world, who's and of course the IBM, Watson's of the world. And I think as important a voice is academia. And so MIT from a science and research chop standpoint is I think pretty cool, but also the law schools of the world. There's some really interesting innovation going on in the law school space to begin to equip a whole new breed of lawyers to take on some of these new roles and understand these new technologies, the notion of legal engineering, I think is a terribly exciting opportunity. So one of the things I would encourage everybody to do at the, what do we call this? At the reception, thank you, is just talk about how could we sustain the nucleus of what's going on just today into 2018. We're having some preliminary conversations about how we could take this and make it more what more focus, synthesize it down to some really core research agenda like you academics do so well. And we pursue those areas more actively and discreetly in 2018. And then of course gather again, hopefully in a second annual MIT legal forum. So talk about that. Give feedback, myself, Daza of course, if there's something you didn't like, talk to Daza. If you have ideas for how we can continue to go forward with imagining what's possible, please show those. Last commercial message I'll make is don't miss tomorrow more the topic of identity. I think is the most exciting of all the possibilities that we talk about in a blockchain space. I have a question I wanted to pose, if I may. So question, just coming right from where Bob was leaving was, took us, who, what topic? So Bob was talking about focus. So this is deliberately a broad range today. And some of it was very much bottom up. Some of it was chosen. Where was the heat? Like who heard something here? We were like, ah, that's got juice. That's something I want to follow up on. Thanks, Corey. Anybody find something that you're like, ah, that's interesting. James, you need the mic. What we, you need the mic. Got a mic. Got to do the mic. Thanks. It's working. I think one of the juice problems, you know, that's sort of a future thing that maybe we should focus on is the blockchain discussions are extremely important, I think. But for many of us that, you know, have invested some time understanding AI, we also immediately are thinking about ontologies and the domain knowledge of the practice and sort of the thinking of law and reducing the sorts of decision making and information models and things like that that lawyers are, you know, very, very accustomed to working with to machine readable sorts of expressions, I think is something we probably could think about more. For example, smart contracts are dumb. Why? Well, because we don't understand how lawyers actually make contracts or whatever it is. So those are things that I think we could also explore. And then also the idea that having everyone in the room solves the classic data science unicorn problem of having the right people available on a team so that when you do have gaps in knowledge and it's a question about, you know, what is the practice in, you know, California jurisdictions in New York for whatever, you're able to supplement that information from someone who has that knowledge. And then that's a catalyst for someone on the technology side to be able to do that. So that cross matrix experience, I think, is extremely also valuable, important. Thank you. And just shout if any of this isn't right, tell me what I'm trying to capture the essence of some of the points. Perfect. You're up. You ready, Dazza? I'm ready. I was giving you the end of the notes there. You and I had spoken before about doing some more specific, like actual legal hacking on a specific issue. So one that I'd propose would be fun that is related to the energy session and maybe some blockchain work. I don't know where the solution lies, but there's a solar tax credit that currently is one that a lot of very large companies take. It's about 60% of the deal if you take the credit plus the depreciation. And we're looking at finding a way to open that up to individuals. Have no idea if it's at all possible, but that or something like that, which is a very focused actual solution we could work towards, maybe an interesting thing to do in the session. So if there's any other momentum around that, I'd love to talk about it and maybe something for a future event. And so instantly tomorrow on that vein, do everyone hear that from IDEO? I know you're speaking your personal capacity, but the idea of could we possibly get together and apply our expertise to just like all focus on a problem and kill it, just solve that. And so one of the things we'll hear tomorrow is what happens at these hackathons and these other rapid prototype kind of crucibles and how they can sometimes pop out remarkable answers, like the transcend the problem. So that's an interesting one. I put it, I noted it. Any other, yeah. Hi Daza, one of the things that we probably should put on the agenda for future discussion is how this impacts the way people work. What are the change management and communication aspects of what this means for the way people do business. So while one may come up with a solution or think of a way in which to use the technology in a different way, we also need to be mindful of what the impact is on those very users, lawyers, others in the ecosystem that have to figure this out. Not everybody gets it, not because they're not smart, just because it's different. So I just figured I'd put that on there if we don't have to solve that today. And just a question, what would be an example of an activity or a thing that could happen that would achieve a better, what like addressing the impacts of how we work. So for example, we learned today about how smart contracts are not smart. That there's a coding element to it, there's this. And for those that don't know anything about that, the way you teach people coding or contracting, if you will, different people learn in different ways. And so the change aspect that I'm alluding to is to appreciate what that is and to talk actively about how that may, in the different communities, how that may be translated or at least received. So like understanding what the smart contracts are, how to use them a little bit of like the level setting of like it does this, it doesn't do that. These capabilities could be applied to that problem. And here's how you do it. And here's how to do it, like as part of your work and your work flow on boarding new associates, holding it into the whole system of the firm or the company. That's great, very practical. Thank you. Sure. Someone up here? Phil, we haven't heard from the far right of the brain. We're doing strong here. Well, one of the things I'd like to see maybe in the next session or next year would be successful use cases. So for instance, so we know that there's a county in Illinois which is doing a pilot study on how title is recorded on a blockchain or how land title, property title is recorded by using blockchain technology. The other use case could be how Delaware statute on maintaining stock ledger, et cetera has performed over the last one year. Earlier this year, they changed their statute to provide for distributed ledgers for maintaining stock record. So I would like to see more of those cases, successful cases to be explained how they did it and what were the kind of problems they faced. So how that can be debugged so that others can replicate that. It'll be a taste of that tomorrow morning that occurred here. Yeah, it was a property title registry which I think I know those people and the other one was what? Oh yeah, yeah, thanks. So I think at lunch tomorrow actually there'll be a little taste of that which but I agree with your point that that needs to be kind of a recurring emphasis into next year. That's so easy to do in this kind of format. We usually don't have this format around here. It looks like we have a couple more. I'm sure, and then this gentleman, what is now the first row? Right, David Nordfors from Innovation for Jobs here again. This is my first legal conference, my first blockchain conference. Thank you very much, everybody. This is extremely interesting. There are a lot of possibilities there. I also see a lot of possibilities tomorrow. I'm gonna discuss innovation for jobs with the help of this. I'd like to also bring up for discussion a concern that we have a very complicated technology that few people understand that can be applied to very complex problems. And I see a risk that people will say, you can do things that you thought you could not do with this. Let me take a parallel. We thought we could not lend money to people who can't pay back. And then somebody invented derivatives which were very complicated and so on. But we trusted it because it was mathematics and everything was very complex and so on. Now we couldn't lend money to people who couldn't pay back and somehow everybody earned on it anyway. And then it turned out at the end of the day it was a magic wand. Nobody understood the math. And we kind of shrouded the problem in complexity and science we didn't understand. I think that, and the problem with this is that this mechanism has extremely strong financial incentives. So you get something going that impractices a Ponzi scheme but that bubble just blows up. How do we avoid that with this fantastic? We now create it. Because I mean everything we can apply to you I mean we got incredible incentives for trying to solve every unsolvable problem in ways that nobody understands. I'm the last guy who can answer that question but it won't stop me from trying. I would propose that the very nature of forums like this will help us better than ever before to have the legal ecosystem ready to be able to be, like what Chris said, to be dolled room for the legal industry to be adults in the room on this conversation while all the hyperbole and all the scenarios you just described are gonna take place whether we try to stop them or not. I suppose the SEC and others might try and stop some of that. But so there is that whole kind of that past cycle that I talked about is gonna happen. And so getting, and I'll speak for my role in my law firm, getting my lawyers as broadly and deeply aware and knowledgeable as I can. I think that's in a position to be able to be the adults in the room on a whole lot of conversations around where the risk is. And I'll just leave it at that where the risk is. So just a quick question. What's the gentleman that spoke and gets your name? Are you still here? Where did you go? Who are you? So I just wrote some words after you spoke. Is this kind of close? Like your concern is that we avoid the Ponzi scheme. And I just said hype, fuels kind of taking from Christians stuff like this landmine. Is that kind of the essence of what you said? Great, thank you. And then the essence of what you said was I'm gonna like 70% confident to what I wrote is maybe like a neutral expert open forum that MIT could be part of as some of this thing. When we do that in some industries could be a useful match with the law. Oh, that's a tough role honestly to play too hard with the certifications and creditations. And it's like, that's very political and there's a lot of difficulty. But a little bit of that in an informal way potentially could be useful. And did I get you right? Yeah. Okay, great. And then there's two more and I think it's Miller time. Oh, well, we could go on for a while, which is good, but oh, Corey, you're up, Mr. Ken Grady, MSU College of Law. Still back to the name rank and serial number. We have two disruptive, complex, interesting technologies. And one of the areas, one of the intractable problems we've had in law since law has been is making it a democratized playing field. So the access to civil justice, access to law problem. And one of the things that's been bubbling around is do these types of technologies, these disruptive technologies, give us the opportunity to have an order of magnitude change in the cost of legal services that affect many people, the 75 to 100 million in the US, who don't have that access to justice. We typically run into the problem that we either have lawyers talking to other lawyers about the issue, or maybe technologists talking to technologists, but this is obviously a vast integrative group. And so we have the possibility to do something or come up with ideas that would affect a massive number of people outside the US, a total of four billion. And so it seems like it's a lost opportunity in a way to not spend some time saying, not just how can we use this to address the many commercial and other ideas that come up, but how can we use these technologies incorporated with law to do something that really has the chance, possibly in a capitalist model, to affect a wide swath of our society. I think that's a really terrific idea and should be a recurring topic, agenda item, research item, access to justice is, that should be kind of what the way you pay to play in the forum is you're willing to engage in that kind of activity. That's a good point, and we've dropped that. Yeah, like you have to come with a loaf of bread under your arm for the party, but come with an idea for, I would call it a moonshot, which is what we do with some other industries where we're always in kind of Cam and others have been in some of these meetings where we're thinking about, okay, what do we do with it? There's some way certain things MIT is supposed to be doing, we do a lot of stuff, but we like the big challenge. Like that's what the place is very well tuned for. And so the questions of a moonshot within the law that could have, which Joey Ito sometimes talks about a good media lab project is always about big scale and important impact focused on changing human condition. And these are some of the types of indicia of the sort of project that people might go for and then put the resources and the commitments and everything together over some few years and arc to tackle it and try to actually do that. And so I'm glad that you said that, Ken. It doesn't go without saying. And really we're listening, like many of you have never been here before, we're not sure where the fits might be and but that one resonates really at the essence of like who we are here. So thank you. We've got one more. One more. No talking for me. Just builds a little bit in a way on what Ken was saying. I mean, there's some of these solutions that lend themselves very well to a sophisticated society like in Massachusetts in 2017. And there's some that lend themselves well to emerging markets. Looking at the Bahamas, they have no land registry. So every property transfer has to be tracked all the way back to crown. So it's vastly expensive. And they have a virgin open slate. You could invent something from scratch. And just again, looking across into Africa, we were talking about this in one of the previous sessions. I was speaking to some lawyers from Nigeria a few months back about AI and blockchain and they said that their government has a very deliberate decision decided not to do nothing. They want to see how it's going to unfold and then they'll think about how they might or might not regulate it. So in some of the simpler societies with simpler legislative systems, it may be possible to do experiments around what is possible that would be a lot more difficult in a far more sophisticated developed legislative framework. At the very end of what you said, I think I got it. So tell me if this is close. What experiments could be what conducted in the rest of the world that could offer a major advance? Yep, better in emerging markets. We do have more questions, sir? I don't think we could do one. Oh, I don't think this side. Actually, is there any more? Gavinda, this has been a major hall there. I'll be really quick. As you know, my passion around provenance and I don't know how best to articulate it. Some of this comes from the background with credit to the inputs to receive when they're doing the round table. Maybe if there's a way to, if not quantify, how can we bring down, here's the most succinct way I can put it. How can we bring down the cost of provenance? If there's a way to quantify that, that'll be great. But around even the enforcement, the description, the translation, the representation, and then the enforcement around provenance is a very, very high watermark right now. And if you want to bring the technology and the multidisciplinary aspects that we are talking to the masses and not leave provenance to, I'm just using an example, to provenance of a Rolex watch or niche markets, then we aren't doing the right level of service in bringing technology to the masses. So I wanted to put that on the table. Nailed it. Okay, I think we're gonna have to break because there are- I did promise- Cocktails waiting. Just, we'll make it quick. So I will make it quick, but I'm gonna be happy with what I say. I cannot find any similarity between AI and blockchain because blockchain, there's nothing smart about it. Just like there is nothing smart about data structures or spreadsheet. A meaningful, is there some meaningful similarity of connection between AI and blockchain? Right, kind of like I don't, you don't see it? Is that the kind of, right? Yeah. Maybe after a couple of cocktails, it'll start to- Just an idea. It's gonna be amazing. So for what it's worth, I've been, I'll go along and I believe like a lot of people I respect see it and they're certain of it. I wish Larry Bridgemouth was here because he swore so that he saw it and then he was gonna tell us about it but the flight was delayed so it couldn't be here. So I'm open to it. I'd like to know it. And let's keep listening. That's one of the things that we, I want to surface. If there's a really great direct showable, like I understand it, we can write it down. Is that true? Yeah, it's true. I wanna know that. And like, let's surface it while we're here. We have another day. I'm sure there are stuff. I mean, we just haven't asked the right way or something, so let's surface that. And like I respect a lot of people that are saying it. So okay, let's talk about it and find it. But here's something that again, David said, David Fisher said that I thought was profound, which is, you know, having people involved in blockchain and people involved in AI together has been very valuable. And I completely agree. And so one of the things I drew from that was, you know what, even if whatever, like you and I are people in the room that can't understand correctly the synergies of AI and blockchain in a way that's practical in the short term, who cares? Like, look at what we can do together. And there is a great deal we could. But for the record, I would just gonna write, what is the meaningful connection between AI and blockchain as a question? And that's a great question I wanna answer. And to answer it successfully would be to achieve part of the mission and the possibility of this conference. And so. If not be changed, you're not changing yourself. So there's nothing smart about it. You cannot enter the things and have a trifecta. It'll be awesome. I'll comment. This is Jules from Linicat Ventures. I think it would be very, very useful to learn from other industries who are further ahead of the legal industry in terms of actually implementing some of these technologies. So insurance, accounting, healthcare even, and actually how we can learn from people who are ahead of us in the implementation. Learning from other industries like accounting. Healthcare. Healthcare. Insurance. Insurance. Any other industries that are a little bit ahead of the legal industry? I got it. I was typing the other thing. I think a fair question along those lines, those are they further along, are they perhaps as far along as sometimes is portrayed? I think it's an open question. But it's a good point that other industries can learn. We can learn from other industries. Okay. I think we're really gonna break for cocktails now. Hopefully we see everybody back in the morning and we'll keep exploring. So last question or let me know if I didn't capture that point well, but that's how I wrote it. Is that good? Excellent. All right. And so that is how the all right and so that is how the first day of the MIT legal forum closed I'd like to hear from everybody out there in internet land who watched it live and those of you who hear and discover this later your impressions share back any good ideas any questions the connections that you made any any good hacks that ought to be done and thoughts about where the real value of priority ought to be going forward for continuing what we started today you can do that at the hashtag MIT legal forum and tomorrow we'll start again at 9 a.m. Eastern time and you can follow along at MIT legal forum org or slash live for the live stream until then good night