 Bernardo is a business administration and accounting graduate from Lisbon Polytechnic Institute and holds a specialization in business analytics. Galvanized by his interest in economics, technology, and culture, Bernardo has recently developed an economic theory called Harbour Georgism that leverages prior contributions in economics in novel ways to offer solutions, with Web 3 as intermediary, on how to sustainably develop the new digital era and ultimately improve the physical world as well. He currently volunteers as a researcher at the Ethereum Foundation. Bernardo. So thank you very much, Carl. First of all, for the invitation to speak before this tremendously well accomplished audience. It's a great honor to be here. And I'll try to make the presentation as interactive as possible, since we are late in the day. So Harbour Georgism. So yeah, this has been an economic theory that I've developed, an aggregate economic theory that I've developed, which is inspired in two prior contributions in economics, which are Georgism and Harbour Georgian taxation. And with the ultimate motif of using these two theories in novel ways to potentiate development in the physical world. And just as a little preface, this wasn't the original idea at all. Like a few months ago, I was hearing, like all of you were, like hearing all these buzz around like NFTs and Metaverse and these kinds of concepts. And I was just thinking what was like the teleology behind this, like what was the purpose, what was the utility of this. And I was getting kind of worried because it was seeming like just a double down on the digital world. And I was thinking that since for the last few decades, we've been kind of lagging behind in the physical world. I was thinking like in a way of making this digital trend not stop there and make it physical. And so yes, so it's inspired in Georgian and Harbour Georgian taxation, starting with Georgism. Henry George was an American economist and he developed this theory in the 19th century. And basically he said that land is a natural and earned good with fixed supply. And that taxing, the value of land, was the most logical and sensible source of public revenue. And basically the George's tax was the land value tax. And he argued that we should abolish all the taxes that hinder production and only have this one which would heavily tax landowners on the land. And he also argued that the revenue collected from this tax was more than enough to fund public services and even to distribute UBI for the citizens. And his main conclusion was to reduce economic inequality and to foster economic progress with this kind of tax. And the other theory is Harbour Georgian tax also an American economist still living. And he said that this theory, like asset owners, could self-assess the value of their assets and pay a periodic tax on that value. And at any point in time anyone could buy that asset at that self-assessed price. And a point of this was basically to make it a more efficient and swift allocation of resources. And that's the last point says like to improve like this balance between the investment and the locative efficiency of a thing. Like to not hold out assets at a monopolistic price and to improve on the allocation and not only the investment. And this would ultimately result in greater welfare gains. And so basically both these theories, I think, are like actually occurred from the Sharer Cities Institute that's alluded earlier. I think that they will come in a new way in the future. There's a possibility for them to come back and to be rethought in this new way-free blockchain context. And so focusing more on this so web-three trend like I think the blockchain has created for new types of assets, goods. Basically the most famous ones we all heard of like the NFTs are tradable but non-fungible like a piece of art. The other one is the non-tradable fungible token which basically could be a course which is non-tradable because we're not gonna buy courses from one another but it's fungible because many people could have taken the same course. Non-tradable fungible tokens could be just cryptocurrencies which are tradable and fungible because there are many of the kind. And non-tradable, non-fungible could be like a passport, a non-shamed passport which non-tradable we're not gonna buy or sell passports from one another and it's non-fungible too because it's unique like a biometric data test it would also fall in this category. And the Georgian piece I think, so it focuses on land and therefore land is an NFT because it's tradable you can buy it from one another but it's not fungible because it's unique no square meter of land is the same as another. As for the hardware part it's assets in general it's like an ambiguous term so it could fall I guess pretty much anywhere. I'm not saying that every picture of this falls under the asset category but that could be changed. And so yeah, so following the Harberger I think by somewhere by the end of this decade we'll have six different types of assets. Centralized physical assets so maybe just this microphone if I owned it it would be mine. Centralized virtual asset like just an asset on web two game. The centralized physical one would be one where Harberger tax would be implemented. The centralized virtual just like a tool on a Farmville game GTA or something. The centralized ownership of a physical asset would be just the ownership of a digital asset on a blockchain and I would own that on-chain ownership. And the last one would just be the mix of the prior two would just be a proxy for the ownership of the physical one and we would have it also on the virtual. For land, the last two types depend on how well like Elon and NASA do but the first three ones are basically the same as the assets and then the next three I think will fall in the category of metaverse crypto city and a mix of both where we could do something like remotely or virtually and the same thing would happen in real life. Like operating a tractor remotely and the tractor would do that same job in a farm in real life. And so yeah, so just a little bit of a context to crypto cities and metaverse. So I think the cultural timing and technology are in place to start advancements as Curtis again has alluded to and I think the rising interest in local governments also potentiated by COVID has potentiated this and the more widespread debate on crypto ideas as too. And here we have a tweet by the mayor of Miami Francis Suarez like this guy was suggesting how could we like switch these initiatives from Silicon Valley to Miami and he was not ironic at all, not self serving. He said like how could he help and they're really making advancements at this point there in Miami. So yeah, so this is certainly not a rough diagram of course in a real economy as a million other types of different transactions but yeah, just a harbor georgist flow of things and we'll get into each and we'll start with the city coin once and just a dinner circle would be just normal and normal people could be also NFT investors and we will see why. So then yeah, so the first point is more of an economic one and pardon. And yeah, so like we've seen on the georgist piece like creation of economic alignment could be the creation of a city coin and that city coin would be paralleled to a number of different square meters of land or shares would be sort of that NFT that the city coin holders could hold. And the last two points are more incentive wise so encouragement of pro-social activities could be just incentivizing a local business shopping or more effective waste management for example. And the last one would just be like we see in the picture like more pedestrian and environmentally friendly and contributing to a more pleasant city with the more efficient green public transportation. On the Dow, yeah, just to preface like a Dow can be a million different things but here is like the city government or a government would be this piece and the business could also be a Dow but I just distinct them just for the sake of clarification. And so just for you to see like the both arrows that point to the Dow are the harbor georgist attacks like the Harberger and Land Value Tax and the Dow, the output of the Dow would be like the public funding and the UBI. And so the Land Value Tax would allow the Dow to make a return on the investment in the public goods since the Land Value Tax received would increase and greater revenues would be able to be extracted by the Dow and also to generate revenue to distribute to the community by the UBI part. As for the Harberger tax is the, more or less as we've seen it would benefit the community from the improved allocation of the assets from the fairer price instruction. And here is sort of a formula on the first member like the inputs and the last one outputs. And then I just picture like an unsuccessful scenario with where the business would, so I, yeah, so nothing particularly wrong with a place like this, but it's just there's a lot of vacant land, there's a lot of potential to, a lot of things could be developed in a place like this. And I argue that, and then I, so as you've seen like I hope you see well in the back, like the parts that are in way are like the parts that wouldn't work that are linked to the business side, that's why it's unsuccessful. And NFT investors could, would like crowdfund the business and the business could like be working in the beginning, but if they fall behind on the, if they start seeing like legging revenues, they would have to adjust their Harberger tax since the Harberger tax would be like too high for the revenue that the business was arriving and therefore they would have to lower the valuation of the business. And by lowering the valuation of a business it becomes more propitious to other potential investors to buy that business. And they could try that, but if they keep not working like the business part fails and the city coin holders like, well, this would have to be seen, but they would lose in this case on the, the NFT investors would lose on this investment because they would crowdfund, but wouldn't see like the royalty come back and the city coin holders would provide the land value tax to the Dow, but they wouldn't see like rent coming back because the business has somewhat failed. And so, so in our picture in a successful scenario where everything like works, the business, everything like works, the business sees progressively greater revenues. The Harberger tax is no problem because you know, the business just increases in revenue. So they would say they would just like could progressively make greater re-evaluations on the business and keeping away like this potential buyers. And so the Harberger tax as you see is like meritocratic too. And yeah, we would have this sort of city that would be sort of developed and I think would be great for every economic agent that we see on the diagram. And just, yeah, some initiatives, some of them are using Harberger tax, others not, but they're city coins. I think they have now projects in Miami, New York and Austin, Texas. And then as a speaker today, I don't remember who, sorry, but they look at the city Dow who bought like 40 acres of land in Wyoming to start out a blockchain city. And then on the metaverse side, it's just that there are sandbox and the central land which as of today are not using any economic theory, but I'm guessing that may change in the future. So, yeah, basically just to conclude, like I argue like both these theories are like complementary in different ways. But one thing that unites them is basically the purpose of them which is like decentralization. And because Georgism decentralizes from the landlord would like fall out of the scheme and would be like the land would be owned by the community and not the landlord. And basically the Harberger tax would be from a sort of monopoly to a community. Wouldn't really decentralize but would make it sort of less private because if a business is not doing that well, the business owner would have to be sort of obligated to lower that reevaluation and make it more propitious for other people to buy it out. And so, and basically I do argue too that we do need some new, for this Web3 era, we do need some new model of economics of governance. We shouldn't like mimatically extrapolate from what we know in legacy cities or Web2 realities and just copy that. We should think a new of these new crypto cities and this metaverse reality. And so I do hope that Harvard Georgism just does help on that front or some derivation thereof. And we could start envisioning how we could open like the physical frontier which we've seen and I'm Western European by the way so I do see this decline in the physical world too which has been like degrading our society in all sorts of ways. And so just to end, I would like to end maybe in just a theological point, I found these two quotes that are like, I think adequate to the event tonight and since the concept of Mormon transhumanism is so present with us today. Like I started reading like, do not be confirmed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. And I do argue that if we work toward this renewal to toward this new state of beginning, God has previously and will again create the heavens and the earth. So, thank you.