 So Crypto 2.0 So first of all why do I like using that term and instead of you know Using something like the Bitcoin space or the blockchain space or smart or blockchain You know, it's like using using blockchain kind of like a mass now and it's like oh, you know We are using boat in order to ship products from Singapore to Canada So it's not just about Bitcoin. It's not just about blockchain. It's not even just about Ethereum It's about the combination of no decentralized cryptographic technologies that can minimize trust It can improve freedom improve cooperation and improve efficiency in very many areas of our lives and this includes a combination of Blockchain based systems that includes a combination of other kinds of decentralized platforms it includes Even platforms that are centralized but still use similar technologies in order to increase their levels levels of Authenticity verifiability cryptographic trust zero knowledge proofs distributed hash tables lots of wonderful technological buzzwords that I'm hoping five to ten years from now will end up being a The fabric of large portion large portions of society and the same to the same extent that semiconductors are now maybe so my onions Because what chains are like onions walk chains have layers so You may have seen at least your at least one of these diagrams Maybe two three maybe four if you if you follow a Bitcoin media way or Blockchain media way much more than you should but in general we talk about kind of application stacks We talk about the core. We talk about core technology. We talk about the networking layer Talk about different kinds of blockchains smart contracts dumb blockchains with army knife protocols smart blockchains We then talk about systems that live on top of these blockchains. We talk about Smart contract programming languages. We talk about solutions for specific applications. We talk about privacy preserving layers Then on top of that we actually have the actual applications and on top of that we have the actual businesses They're finally going to make a single sense of money from the whole thing so There's lots of stuff to be done lots of different Different categories of work that need to be done Then Lots of categories of work of work to be done lots of different people involved academics businessmen developers governments Marketing sales Math security auditing just about everything So this was what the industry looked like five years ago I don't know how many people who were here work here five years ago. It was a very different place It was about a few thousand people mostly hanging around internet forums. It was Some people were selling alpaca socks We had a bunch of gambling platforms We had physical coins that have bitcoins inside of them bit munchies an actual online store that sold a bunch of various kinds of food for Bitcoin and A bunch of more Interesting stuff Here's where we are now 2016 Microsoft Azure go Ethereum on Ubuntu Deloitte to build a theorem based digital bank with New York City's consensus Republic of Estonia your residency partnership bit nation governance 2.0 Ethereum used for first-paid energy trade using watching technology UBS shedding new light on watching experimentation Possibilities for the US Postal Service Nasdaq omx so From here to here five years So this is welcome to the speed of modern technological development So first of all, what's the point? Even outside the context of crypto in general things of value in the world are becoming increasingly digital So this is a chart of the euro money supply so from 1998 to 2007 Now here it's brought put into different categories Now physical currency out of that currency in circulation only a small portion on top of that and one m2m3 Basically different categories of bank deposits all of which are pretty much entirely stored virtually So people sometimes talk about Bitcoin as if it's the first digital currency Well, guess what the euro is 90% of digital currency already domain names so the Can the ownership of the domain name private jet comm literally costs more money than a private jet? Here's another interesting example Let's look at the top five instances of any kind of crowdsourced project funding crowdfunding crowd sales and anything in the general category One of them won't name the name sold 60 million digital tokens whose value is to pay for computational cycles in the in a decentralized network Crowdsail that happens two years ago got a huge huge pile of Bitcoin ended up paying for pretty much all of Ethereum development one of them star citizen $114 million What were they crowdfunding they were selling for $500 each virtual spaceships in the massively multiplayer online game that they're themselves developing That's their that's their current business model 114 million dollars Pretty close to one billion Hong Kong So if Asia becomes like the sort of actual center of the world in the day and the definition of a billionaire starts shifting to like these those currencies then It's pretty impressive and one of them 160 million dollars sold tokens of a fully autonomous decentralized company that sits on top of the decentralized computer network So here we have it three out of five completely virtual objects Our systems for dealing with these assets Unfortunately, they're often insecure then they're interoperable black global usability, and they're pretty outdated so 200,000 Comcast customers told to reset their passwords after their data got hacked and was offered for sale App store got shut down a bunch of customer details stolen Incidents in about five years ago where major certificate authority got hacked and people Basically, we're just some random person from Iran who managed to do it in something like 20 minutes And it turns out that a whole bunch of like major websites are potentially compromised so digital state of digital security is Still unfortunately is still not very strong. The good news is Unlike with the case of physical security. We actually can do digital security much better and we can even do it much more cheaply so So I came out smart contracts the original analogy that for that Nick Sabo used for smart contracts when he came up with the concept was Vending machines so vending machines. They're kind of a smart contract implemented in hardware. You put it you put a dollar in There is a set of rules implemented in physical hardware that say when you put a dollar in some bottle of some kind of drink comes out Making that vending machine making it secure It's expensive and even still vending machines don't have an infinite security if you really want so you can take a hammer And you can break it in the digital world making the virtual equivalent of a vending machine Number one much cheaper and number two once you make it. It's pretty much unbreakable So how can block chains help so there's been a lot of interest in blockchain technology in the last year Oh may have seen this cover of the economist the trust machine So people are starting to get the idea that blockchain technology are this kind of abstract thing They can kind of make things more trustworthy in some sense that we kind of don't fully understand a lot of people have gotten to the point of kind of hearing about it from the first time and in and getting the Sense that it's somehow something that might end up Improving trust or reducing fraud in some sense or just kind of being part of the economy, but What does that mean? So what is the trust machine even mean? so in general blockchains are a Mechanism that allows you to run application logic So in an application logic can be different things could be the law the rules of a currency Good, so you know logic that says if I have 50 units of some currency I can transfer up to 50 units has some other account But not more than 50 units could be the rules behind registering domain names could be Registering various other kinds of digital property could be financial contracts could be identity management They allow in they allow you to run this logic on a platform, which is extremely robust completely trustworthy decentralized thousands of computers There's a strong guarantee that the platform is not going to number one arbitrary changes functionality number two Once it realizes that the entire economy is dependent on it It's not going to rack its prices up by a factor of a hundred and extract monopoly rents and number three It's not going to shut down. So one one testament to this There's about there's somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 blockchains running right now Most of them aren't doing anything interesting at all most of them are just things that some guy on some internet forum spun up and As long as at least one user somewhere continues to mind them Guess what the blockchain continues to exist even if the original developer typically forgot about it and wishes it was dead so That's power blockchain technology Disintermediation so you can do sort of generalized kind of x without the x if you're if the concept of uber without the uber Facebook sign-in without the Facebook banking without banks excites you this is a technology for you so Yeah, it's it's okay, you know bankers can stay in banks. There's just going to be good visiting food banks So problem Of course one one question people ask is you know, okay trust well guess what people already trust Microsoft They trust Google they trust the government I mean fortunately making this presentation in a country or in Singapore where the government seems to broadly make sense Last time I made the presentation when I said back in Australia when I said the sentence out loud, I recall people laughing Blockchains are not at least in the near so blockchains are not about competing with them They're about creating a low-cost alternative So if you're looking for salute if you're looking for a place for watching technology might apply Think of the places where sort of strong institutional trust anchors just don't exist at all And it's going to be hard to create one because well nobody trusts anyone So think of you know some country where the government and two other paramilitary groups are at war with each other Who's going to be the bank? So one sort of nice graph that I use to describe this is this sort of notion between kind of Safety and investment or between sort of safety and the x-axis could be cost could be social capital could be a bunch of it Could be regulation could be a bunch of different things so Systems that are centralized in the developing world developed world tends to already be safe But they tend to have been expensive to build to get up to that point M event systems sort of decentralized systems right now Practically speaking they are still a bit less a bit less safe than that. There's still technological risks There is still kind of user-level security issues, but they're much cheaper in other place in many other places in the world Safety they have invested even more money that in that we had even more social capital than blockchains can provide But the level of safety is much lower. So Somewhere we have to find There are a lot of places where there is potential where the potential is basically Getting to the same level of reliability that in many cases we have now but much much cheaper Side benefits standardization blockchains are typically automated So some people who are pushing blockchain technology are really basically just pushing automation global you can use Send bitcoins from Kyrgyzstan to Guatemala just as easy as you can send bitcoins to your neighbor Just exactly the same low fees cheap The fees are somewhere between five to seven cents Now that said in the case of Bitcoin specifically fees have been going up a bit lately But I'll probably talk about that later in the governance section Interapplication into operability applications on blockchains can talk to each other and because of the way that smart contract immutability works The interoperability is actually even more reliable than each of it then the blockchain at the applications are relying on themselves So useful in a bunch of different areas So there's clearly a lot of potential and unfortunately and ultimately it is the job of a Combination of blockchain enthusiasts people and people in suits Business people who hopefully won't be wearing suits because I think suits are stupid and a bunch of other And a bunch of other groups to figure those areas out, but I think clearly we're getting there So let's talk about decentralization So blockchains are decentralized technology, that's kind of the whole point so Just to sort of be a bit controversial here scaling Bitcoin conference in Hong Kong last year Those of you who are kind of in the know probably know that thing on the left is a picture of the nine major groups of Bitcoin miners or Bitcoin mining pools together. They control about 80 or 90 percent of the Bitcoin network on the right I have the Bank of England's monetary policy subcommittee so Have to sort of think exactly what first of all what exactly what level of decentralization are you getting here? Is it necessarily even Just a decentralization by itself or is it decentralization coupled together with something else? Is decentralization just the number of people involved in making a decision or there are also other factors like How hard how easy or how hard is it for the people to coordinate do the people in these communities? Have a sort of history and a culture of coordinating are there social expectations that they can or cannot do certain things Realistically even though these nine miners create all the block create most of the blocks If they were to start printing a hundred bitcoins for themselves every ten minutes Well, my Bitcoin client would just reject their blocks. So their power isn't unlimited so decentralization can mean many things but At the end of the day from a technological standpoint Well, obviously there's still one of the sort of interesting research direction of figuring out if we actually can create blockchain protocols that are More you more decentralized. I think it's possible. We just have to switch from proof of work to proof of stake and do a bunch of other things so Some of course argue that blockchain that this is terrible blockchains are a threat to the distributed future of the internet and What does this bright person from the period of your foundation say we should switch to the distributed structure of servers? So just to sort of give a bit of context here before blockchain technology existed There were was an established community of people who were trying to create kind of more decentralized applications And this is something that people have been wanting for kind of if for quite a long time They don't like the idea of like one company sort of can be kind of like being like Facebook and controlling entire network Effects and being able to extract huge monopoly rents from that technology we were using before is Basically, they were saying let's still have an application based on you know users connecting the servers difference is anyone can set up their own server and people may even set up their own server and The system there's a protocol by which the systems can talk to each other So this person is a bit bearish on blockchain technology for these use cases. Thanks. We should stick with the server model So I think he's completely wrong The first reason is the the one major platform that took on this model was a diaspora So this is a sort of social network that tried to keep you with Facebook back in 2010 So this is isn't really pre-Bitcoin, but in some sense it is sort of pre-blockchain decentralization Turns out first of all No, in general, I am kind of fairly bearish on freedom box. I'm fairly bearish on anything that calls itself the Bitcoin computer I'm not Even you know any project that tries to call itself, you know the Ethereum computer quite quite possibly as well any projects that Might seek might succeed, but in general my viewpoint is users do not want to maintain their own servers. So This manual or TAGA says barriers of entry are associated only with knowledge and the cost of infrastructure very low Well, yeah, you know, of course you buy a buy a freedom box for a hundred dollars. You have your own server Problem is in reality. It's not just about buying your own server It's about making sure your box is connected to the internet a hundred percent of the time Making sure that the internet connection is robust making sure that you know If if it crashes it automatically it starts up again quickly so a whole bunch of sort of maintenance tasks that practically speaking people really don't want to do and The thing is, you know people For myself personally all I have is a laptop that lapped for maybe somewhere between 12 and 12 and 16 hours a day That laptop is turned off or at least suspended. So Server model don't think it works well and ultimately server I think users will probably want things that they can just use off of their existing computers So if people can't kind of maintain their own servers themselves, what do they do? Well, they just kind of use third-party services Now the advocates say this is fine because while these services can talk to each other. It's a common protocol This ignores reality for two reasons. One of them is in practice it and still ends up being pretty centralized So in the case of diaspora, there's one of these kind of centralized servers and called join diaspora comm Has about 49% of the market share And the second piece of history that people needs to remember is this sort of embrace extend and extinguish concept if All you have is an open standard Then what you have is a standard where if one particular group manages to get market share Now of course in the case of diaspora all these people Ideologically believe in decentralization chances are joined diaspora comm is not going to do anything evil But if we're talking about sort of mainstream adoption Then practically speaking if one major player gets market share Then that player can eventually start making their own extensions to try and quote improve user experience Make those extensions proprietary over time and then eventually deliberately make themselves incompatible with a network And they'll force everyone to go with them so my opinion not long-term stable and in my opinion one of the interesting things about blockchain technology specifically is that it's Actually a kind of open standard that forces you to really rigidly stick to it and not make any kind of extensions If you make an if you create a blockchain client that that extends itself That's called a hard fork and guess what you're going to fly off the network and nobody's going to want to use your system again So it's a system that does use a very powerful kind of force of inertia to actually make sure that the thing remains open And the thing remains standardized so What is decentralization? Kind of hard to say I mean first of all there's obviously these sort of different debates on how to how to measure it But then you know there's also sort of graphs like this people talk about centralized decentralized distributed In my opinion this characterization is completely useless because nobody really agrees on what decentralized and distributed mean So I prefer my own my own characterization three-dimensional compass number one politically centralized politically decentralized Is it controlled by one company or is it actually a system that's kind of controlled by a lot of people together? so Then architecturally centralized is it Run on one server or is it run on a bunch on a whole bunch of computers that talk to each other And finally is it logically centralized does it feel kind of like sort of one central thing? Or does the view kind of feel sort of more more distributed river and kind of sees it in a different way so You can have different combinations of this so for example There's lots of major gaming companies that use torrent networks, which are architecture decentralized as a way of spreading updates to the To their games that they're making to their users Politically centralized. They're the ones pushing the clients. They have authority over the network, but architecturally speaking It's very distributed and again, and it has efficiency gates from that Look at something like a lot of political systems tends to be pretty decentralized voting is pretty decentralized everyone can vote Mechanism that enforces it. It's pretty centralized logically decentralized so Torrent networks logically decentralized nobody even sees what all of the files are everyone has a different view There's not really sort of much coordination and consistency in them And if all you want to do is transfer files around that's perfectly fine Blockchains are logically centralized. There's one view it pretends to be a single computer You know that's we call a theory of the world computer and I Archaeological essentialization is actually a good thing and it's precisely the real a major reason why Blockchains are such an easy platform for people to develop on and why they've been kind of Successful in ways that previous forms of decentralization even if they may have been perfectly adequate have failed So by the way just as a quick aside People sometimes argue that you need proof of work is basically the only way to get Decentralization the only way to get sort of truly secure blockchains in some sense completely false so Proof of work is one kind of security mechanism There are obviously other ways to run blockchains you can have proof of work You can have proof of stake you can either there's even this concept of consortium blockchains where basically you choose like Some like 20 or 40 like known people from around the world give each one of them a node have a kind of blockchain between them that's perfectly fine and I would argue that that's pretty tamper proof as well because convincing all those people to go along with a tampering attempt is Realistically also not it's it's hard to say that it's that much more difficult than convincing these people to all accrued with each other Whether you're talking about the miners or the Bank of England Monetary Policy subcommittee so blockchains and standardization so see Standardization so problem that happens in the real world very often people wants to how you know There's a bunch of standards people wants to sort of make a standard that covers all you all use cases so Problem is of course nobody has the ability to actually manage to do it So I would argue that if you want to sort of create a good open standard There are kind of nice properties that you want your standard to have So you know you want it to be sort of reliable You want people to kind of perceive it as being neutral and you want it to sort of be perceived as being kind of Independent and not controlled by any single commercial or political entity and you want it to be difficult It's to make to do this kind of embracing extend attack off of it So I would argue the reason what a lot of blockchain plays actually are standardization plays And that's perfectly fine because watchings do happen to have the side benefit of Actually having all these nice properties so Let's talk about government applications 2011 the primary government application of watching technology was a note making governments lives harder So you may have heard of black market reloaded, which is a totally legit market You may have heard of dark leaks anonymous. We sell a good formation a bunch of other or not anonymous marketplaces Basically, if you were in the government in 2011 to 2013 you saw blockchain technology and chances are you were looking at this 2014 so this is the place where sort of blockchain developers decided to sort of take the more Canadian route and try to kind of apologize for the first three years of the blockchain industry as they tried to Basically do the classic signaling thing and got a bunch of advisors to make them from from securities commissions to make themselves a look more impressive and look and look more legit so Bit pay Valorum probably a bunch of other examples way too many to list That's Now here we are in 2016 So this is another one of those slides where I have to kind of carefully lay things out hexagonally because there's just so much impressive stuff happening UK government awarding 258,000 pounds for a Ethereum prototype so this is the company called Tremonex, which is doing essentially a kind of fiat current currency back digital token Russia's national settlement depository testing and e-voting system Proof of identity on a theorem. This is a kind of link bit a link between sort of Estonian e-residency and the Ethereum blockchain Credits are doing some kind of KYC blockchain looks like KYC blockchain is the new buzzword these days Ukraine government doing something postal service has a nice report mentions a theorem a couple times therefore it's good So it's changing Now the question is of course, what is this going to look like in 2020 now quite possibly I mean, I hope there's going to be so much interesting stuff happening that each individual box is going to be less than one pixel You're not going to be able to read any of it so In general stuff to keep in mind Number one government services are services to stuff the government does is all is also stuff It's part of the economy There's no reason why in general the kinds of things that the government is involved in should benefit from blockchain applications any less than the private sector so Governments may trust themselves, but do they trust each of their own employees so I think inside of large institutions They're still trust problems inside of go between different government departments quite possibly between Even inside of large corporations, some of them are actually structured in a kind of fairly sort of globally distributed way They might not even have perfect trust between themselves Third point a bit a bit controversial, but important I think a lot of people are scared of blockchain technology because the major news items that they saw was 2014 Bitcoin exchange called Mt. Gox collapsed and it turns out that it was like missing 500 million dollars of its depositors Bitcoin and I Would argue the Mt. Gox collapse is actually an argument in favor of decentralized crypto technology and not against it So here's why Mt. Gox first of all, it's a Bitcoin exchange. Sure. It has connection to Bitcoin, which is a blockchain Fortunately, we don't have anyone seriously saying that it's the blockchain, but so the but practically speaking Aside from that, it's a centralized service It's a it's a thing run by one company or it's a company run by one guy who is absolutely not transparent People sent their bitcoins into what they pretty much had knew had to blindly trusted So it's the exact opposite of what we're trying to do here There are actually possibilities to use blockchain crypto technology to do things like Number one have an exchange make create cryptographic proofs every second Proving that it continues to be solvent and it has all the bitcoins that it needs to line up with its with the deposits Number two you could even sort of these partially decentralized the sort of crypto exchange business entirely 95% at least 90 to 95% of losses from exchanges are actually cryptocurrency losses So the thing that you can do is sort of separate the market in half Where you have an exchange that we're all it does is it issues a token backed by some fiat currency So the only thing you're trusting them with is the fiat currency then you have a decentralized blockchain based exchange between no dollar tokens or or you know, Hong Kong dollar tokens Singapore dollar tokens say euro tokens and Ether Bitcoin whatever else you want to buy then decentralized exchange keep it with trustworthy You don't need to trust anyone only the fiat currency part has some trust components But because that's 20 times smaller. You've reduced the trust risk by about 95 percent. So There actually are possibilities to use Descripto and smart contract technologies to Recreate a lot of these financial systems in ways that you don't even need to sort of shuffle the trust around You literally shuffle the trust around to the point where it just disappears There's nothing that needs to be trusted because it's because the assets are literally directly under the control of computer programs that everyone can see so That's not the that's one one example another example is quite possibly something like In general investments ranging from crowdfunding to sort of VC investments Don't need to get don't need to give people the money immediately could give it to them in tranches could put it into a smart contract Smart contract gives it out on a schedule and it has some rules that say if certain conditions aren't satisfied then the money stops So lots of possibilities So first of all In general many governments and I've talked to a lot of them personally They're perfectly fine with blockchain technology You actually be surprised or even perfectly fine with the concept of decentralization If quite often if it's cheaper that and and more efficient and it provides what they want they actually are willing to go for it Last point scalability matters So in general blockchains right now Bitcoin could do three to seven transactions a second a theorem could do 15 If you want to create a system that processes all stock transfers in a country You might need something like 10 to 100,000 transactions a second so us technology people still have a long way to go Talk about security So quick tour through Bitcoin land in June 2011 Bitcoin talk member all in vain lost 25,000 bitcoins after an unknown intruder somehow gained access to his computer the attacker was able to access all in veins walled That file and quickly empty out the wallet Either by upload sending a transaction from the computer itself or uploading it got hacked into his computer. He lost $500,000 Okay, so hacking is a problem. Well, let's make yours Let's try and store your passwords and accounts in a way that's so so secure that even you can't access it Bitcoin developers Stefan Thomas had three backups of his wallet and encrypted USB stick a Dropbox account and a virtual box virtual machine However, he managed to erase two of them and forget the password to the third forever losing access to 7,000 BTC And there's a bunch more if you read this particular article, there's like another four examples Now, of course centralization itself has its flaws mount gox Now that's about money. Now. Let's look at Ethereum land smart contracts programming Here is someone trying to make a decent a sort of toy decentralized casino on the Ethereum blockchain Of course any kind of any kind of decentralized casino needs a random number generator. So the guy figured, okay I am going to just write the function that just generates random numbers I'm going to write it put into smart contract code. The thing that the guy probably didn't realize is that no Putting your random number generator seed in a function and calling the function private doesn't mean that it's private guys It's running on a public blockchain so what happened is some guy basically managed to kind of Sort of simulate simulate transactions on his local machine over and over again and kind of pretends to run the transaction See what the results would be and then eventually published You know kept on publishing transactions only when his simulations showed those transactions were going to win And so he managed to drain this casino of pretty much all of its money So that's a sort of pitfall smart contract programming. Here's another one Got an application that application has Basically has the job of kind of paying it paying out a bunch of people in sequence In this particular case you might notice there's a different there's two variables here There's payout cursor underscore ID underscore and there's payout cursor underscore ID with no underscore If you don't look at that carefully you might not realize that those are two different variables Payout cursor underscore ID underscore gets incremented every time the money gets sent the other variable does not So the contract pretend looks like it pays everyone in reality. It just pays the first person over and over again So an obvious and yeah, I mean the and the first person who participated in this particular contract is totally not the creator of the Contractor who thought we did not do this deliberately And more so trust for utopia is a bit harder than it seems So the question is how do we avoid this without bringing back this? How do we avoid sort of the sort of security issues of decentralization without But without doing it in a stupid way that just gives us centralized gateways all over again, I think we can now finally Talk about governance so Back in 2013 the and you know back in the original days The intention was for these systems to be kind of completely apolitical systems that had no challenge governance challenges whatsoever Because you have a protocol. Oh Satoshi dreams up Bitcoin. The protocol is perfect. It needs no changes whatsoever And all the innovation has to gets to happen on top Simple right so back then the major criticism was basically that well Maybe deep what is according to again as far focus deep politicized currencies We're just we're not capable of having having monetary policies that would that would be economically optimal under many different kinds of circumstances so He thought that the decentralized or deep politicized currency could exist. He just didn't think that it would work well Here's the problem in rate. Here's the issue that happened in reality So on top now this is all in the context of the Bitcoin block size debate Andres Antonopoulos. I believe this is called a Mexican standoff So just to give a big a bit of a background here Basically, there's sort of two strategies right now to trying to kind of increase Bitcoin scalability One of them is this approach called segregated witness and other one is this approach called basically a hard fork They just sort of pushes up the the maximum size of a block. So theoretically you can use both of them together There's one point. There's one political party called core. There's one political party called classic core prefers This the seguit approach classic prefers just pushing the look pushing the limit up So core or is the group that basically controls the development process? But over here, what do we have basically one of the mining pools refuses to kind of approve the segregated witness unless the code for the for the hard fork to increase the limit gets released first and Andres is calling this a kind of Mexican standoff and that you have these sort of two groups that are kind of standing off against each other And they're at this point kind of stuck in an impasse So I once the Wikipedia looked up looked up mechs that are Mexican standoff In popular use the term Mexican standoff is sometimes used to refer to confrontations in which neither opponent appears to have a measurable advantage Historically as many commentators have used the term to reference the Soviet Union United States nuclear confrontation during the Cold War specifically to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 Now if this isn't politics, I don't really know what is so Basically fact is these systems do have political challenges They are not just kind of magic things in a box that are sort of completely immune to kind of human social political constraints And what what sort of computer geeks have lately been realizing is that basically no just the simple facts that your Institutions are written in code doesn't mean that you get to escape the category of human social process that we describe with the word politics So it's harder There's also now we also have this interesting concept called DAOs So one of them just got got a hundred fifty million dollars DOs are kind of interesting challenges and governance is that you actually use sort of smart contract code in order to kind of encode the rules Under which assets are controlled really interesting model Now that said it's still a very early one So the first DAO turns out that the code in that in the DAO has some kind sort of in scientific compatibility issues And it turns out that the governance algorithm isn't isn't quite perfect And there are some concerns that sort of bias it toward voting Yes, even for bad proposals and so people are kind of right now The project is kind of slowing down so that it sort of so that it kind of has some other time to Basically upgrade its code to always get have we solved those issues before it really starts voting on proposals So governance challenges in DAOs in other category of governance challenges There's still happen this something that hopefully will get resolved in the in the next couple of years But ultimately it's gonna have to iterate decentralized companies on the blockchain are an experiment and You know realistically, I think we're going to see many of them I think we're going to see people trying lots of different approaches Some of them will fail some of them will succeed could be very interesting so Blockchains of the future So the goal at least for myself is think of it as the kind of decentralized operating system Think of it as the kind of basically your platform that lets you do Theoretically everything that you can do with applications today with minimal losses to Scalability latency privacy, but with the gain of decentralization and cryptographic security So create a kind of platform that lets people sort of choose a security trade-off something wants that lets people create Tries to be as much of a kind of in almost invisible invisible layer As possible but provide security at the same time this obvious we takes First right not not this kind of DLS Obviously takes scalability concerns obviously takes sort of privacy challenges and ultimately Building the applications so stage one is building the applications. That's happening right now with your aim has about 220 of them Stage two applications need to get actual users And of course need more pandas. Thank you