 Okay, so I know it's 5.30, and it's been a long day, and I know everybody's thinking about dinner, but let's talk about social composability. So I want to talk specifically about how DOWs can leverage it for the future of work. Okay, so I want to start with actually who am I, right? So actually I think that nobody here knows me. So have we met, you and I? Would you hire me for 300K a year? Probably not, right? That would be insane, right? Not yet, exactly. Have we met? No, do you trust me? Probably not, okay. So exactly, so who am I? Which begs the question, if you don't know who I am, why should you care about what I have to say, right? You came here, you don't know me, right? So what's happening is actually that invisible identifiers are at play here, that we subconsciously respect, right? The fact that I am up here at DEF CON, giving a talk, means that you to some extent respect the approval process of DEF CON. Somebody has vetted me and said this person has expertise worth sharing, right? But actually I would probably think that nobody here knows what the DEF CON approval process looks like. So you're trusting something that you actually have no idea how it works. And this is even more difficult online, right? The internet is absolutely crazy, platforms don't talk, and reputation that you build on one platform is completely irrelevant on another. If you've got three million followers on Twitter, that only matters on Twitter, technically, right? Did you know, you specifically, that I used to be the head of design at Spotify? Yeah, no, of course not, because it's a lie, I'm not, right? But on LinkedIn, anybody can say anything, right? I can just go on LinkedIn and say, yeah, I designed the internet as we know it, right? There is very little checks and balances of that system, right? When you hire somebody via LinkedIn, you need to go through their referrals, you need to check their CV, you need to invite them to an interview. There's an arduous process for verifying that somebody has the skills that they say they have, which brings me to social composability, right? This is something unlocked, hopefully, by Web3, that I think is going to change a lot of things going forward. So composability is, for anybody who doesn't know, it's basically Lego, right? Web3 loves it. It's how can I make a basic building block that anybody else can start reusing? And social composability specifically, it's about social identifiers as Lego. So information that says something about you that represents you as an individual and about the skills that you have. But what do we actually want to know about each other? What information makes us who we are? In the age of DOWs, we actually need to change the kind of information that we need to know about each other because the type of work has changed. So we kind of need to, as gamers would say, minmax it, right? We need to maximize the useful information about each other while minimizing information that we don't necessarily want to know about other people. We need to respect each other's privacy as well. So right now, money talks in Web3. I, if I've got loads of money, I can buy a board Ape, become part of the board Ape Yacht Club, and suddenly I've bought my way to influence. So that's not kind of the Web3 that I want to live in. So what if more could talk than just money? So at Common Ground, I'll get to that in a moment, we're building based on Bourdieu's theory of capital. And he was a French sociologist that basically came up with a theory of capital. There are lots of theories of capital, but his is the one that we are using to build because it was concrete enough for us to build good software with it. So Bourdieu says that you have multiple types of capital at your disposal. One is economic capital, which is basically cash. Your assets, the NFTs that you have, the properties you have, and all of this money, your Colombian pesos. You also have social capital though. And social capital is your connections. It's the people you know. It's your parents. It's who, what clubs you're part of, the influence that you can exert via your social capital. And then there's also cultural capital. And cultural capital is your knowledge. It's your education. It's your mannerisms. It's maybe even having a British accent. It unlocks certain doors because of having access to this kind of cultural capital. And finally, there's symbolic capital. And symbolic capital, it's prestige. If you have two rich people, but one person spends it all on culture and being a patron of the arts, and another rich person spends it all on gambling and cocaine, they have different symbolic capital. They are perceived differently by society. If I write books to extend my respect in the world, I'm growing my prestige and therefore my symbolic capital. And all of these things are deeply interconnected. So you can trade these things for each other. So for example, I could spend economic capital to become part of the Borde Yacht Club to grow my social connections. I can, through those connections, earn knowledge or insider alpha or whatever the hell. Using that alpha, I can maybe write blog posts about it and get really trending on Twitter and grow my symbolic capital. And using all of these things, I can start making money again. So all of these things are interconnected and they say a lot about your standing in the world and the influence that you can exert over it. So let's look a little bit about identifies in Web3 that say something about you. So for example, in economic capital, somebody has 100 doge. That's okay. This person has a wallet, understands a little bit about cryptocurrencies. Cool, they bought some doge. Good for them. This person, whoa. It's still 100, but who is this person? This is probably an important person or at least a very rich person. But you need to know the difference between these two things. The average person has no idea what this means. And for example, social capital. If you have 72 followers on Twitter, maybe you're writing good content. Maybe not. Who knows. But you don't have a broad audience, so to speak. But you add a K to that 72. Certainly, you're a big person. You have influence over the space. I want to get to know this person with 72K followers. I want to know what they have to say. I don't want to. It's biased, but I want it. I don't know why. And for example, cultural capital. So the knowledge that we have. For example, if you participate in governance, good for you. You've understood what governance is. You've read a proposal and you put a vote on it. Cool, you already know more than 99% of the entire world. However, if you passed a governance vote, so if you wrote it, if you defended it to your audience and got it approved in your DAO, clearly you know a lot about the subject matter that you just proposed. You have a different cultural capital at your disposal. And another example is, for example, the DEF CON attendees. So this is you, the audience, right? You have certain knowledge. You've understood what Ethereum is. You understood how to come here and that you want to learn more. But it's not the same as DEF CON speaker, me in this sense, who's been invited here to be an expert on the subject matter. I have, in theory, more knowledge about something that's why I'm standing up here. And finally, symbolic capital. As an example, to be a member of a DAO is a fantastic, interesting thing. It means that you've understood what a DAO is. You're contributing in some certain way. It doesn't necessarily give you a lot of prestige. However, if you are a founder of a DAO, maybe you have more connections through that. People start talking about, ah, this person founded a DAO. Oh my God, who is this person? So they have access to different kind of symbolic capital and this, again, influences all of the other types of capital. So you get the idea. Web 3 says a lot about you, but only if you understand it. And actually understanding it itself is cultural capital. It gives you an advantage to know these things and most people don't understand it. So let's talk about designing a system of identifiers. And this is, I think, where it gets a bit more interesting. So we think at Common Ground that a major source of identifiers should be when humans interact. Most of society is built through humans interacting and I think it says a lot. So for example, if we build a chat app where one person asks for help and another person provides that help, this is very qualitative as an act and it's difficult to quantify. It's difficult to say, this person has provided a helpful service. But what if, in Web 3, we could say, actually, if this other person says, yeah, thanks for helping me, this person could grow helpfulness in a kind of gamified way. You build this identifier that, in a way, you are helpful in the space. And this is just the first example. Another example is you become a member of a DAO. So if I join a DAO as a designer and I contribute for a month, slowly my little DAO contributor level can go up. And eventually, of course, once I'm level 2, people will be like, whoa, this person knows a lot about contributing to DAOs. And another example is governance votes. If I vote yes on governance proposals, I can grow my governance expertise. And in a few years, people will be like, wow, this person has participated a lot in governance. And what this does is basically, you start mapping out a skill tree of the human condition. You basically collect and map out your accomplishments. And in a certain way, Web 2 companies already do this, except it's a quarterly review. You sit down with your supervisor and they say what you're good at, where you're performing, where you're underperforming. But it's a very subjective thing. It depends on your boss. It depends on your supervisor. And ultimately, if I quit a job and go to another company, I have to start again from scratch. I have to convince them that what I did at the last company was really good. Totally believe me, guys, regardless of what I'm actually being reviewed as. So it's a very subjective thing. And I think once we start mapping out the human condition in this way, you can start becoming more objective, but we'll get to the cons in a moment. So this becomes a massive skill tree summarizing your entire existence into badges. This is amazing. Loads of projects are building this right now. It's going to be really cool. So these social identifiers become verified credentials to be used anywhere. This is the composable aspect, something I earn on one platform I can use anywhere across Web 3. That's where it gets interesting. And pay attention to VCs because you're about to see them everywhere in Web 3. Actually, the W3C in March this year recommended starting to use verified credentials. So it's officially endorsed and I think loads of projects are going to start using it. So I think my work here is done. Easy. I've mapped the human condition. That was super easy and nothing bad can come of it, probably. But it's not that simple. Because designers have a massive responsibility when actually trying to map social behaviors and social inequality to basically a glorified skill tree. So all human beings are fundamentally born free and equal in dignity and rights. So this is from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And basically that means that these kinds of systems have to be designed really, really thoughtfully because they can have ramifications socially that maybe you don't entirely are able to anticipate. So what's to stop my entire reputation that's on chain ruining my life in three years? Through some reason. It conducts me and suddenly people find me at my home and that's it because of some reputation thing I did three years ago. So we need to start actually talking about preventing reputation trails. So we need to start with something called self-sovereignty which is basically I get to be the master of what I share and what I don't share. So when I start building these skill trees I need to be able to say who can see what. So you need to have control over these systems. What you also need to be able to do is to revoke certain things. So Binance actually you know they do a KYC and this year they started issuing a token for this KYC that you can claim and then prove on other platforms that you've done the Binance KYC. But this is revocable. So you can actually go back to Binance and this token that you have in your wallet you can revoke and say actually I don't want to have it there anymore. Right? So in case Binance is I don't know suddenly turns out to be super evil or whatever and you don't want to be associated with it you can revoke it. And then there's also Consent. So I don't want to be airdropped soulbound stuff that's on my wallet forever. Please ask me first. Right? I need to be able to claim these things. I then needs to be a mechanism of consent especially you know when you start talking about things that might be on chain forever. And finally Rehabilitation. Just like in real society if I break the rules I go to prison and in theory that's to be rehabilitated so that I can become a normal member of society again. I don't want reputation that I collect in these skill trees and this in the social composable system to basically track me and I can never do anything about it again. Another thing that we have to talk about is Sibyl resistance. So Sibyl resistance is basically the act of being resistant to Sibyl attacks which is when people use pseudonyms to subvert a system. And if you've ever asked your cousin to leave you a five star review on your Google business you've in some way committed an act of Sibyl attack or if I post something on Twitter and then I quickly change account and I vote my own thing and I support myself then you are committing a Sibyl attack. So what do we do about that? We can do things like reverse Turing tests which is humans having to prove that they are humans via some kind of test you know the picking little street lamps or whatever. But then there's also things like DIDs. So there's loads of projects starting up now talking about decentralized identities. This is basically conducting a KYC and it's often like holding up a passport on a camera. But there's also privacy preserving DIDs which is basically it can scan your face and say you are a unique human being but we don't want to know your name or identity or anything else. So this is also really interesting. And finally passports. So you've probably heard of the Gitcoin Passport and I think DiscoXYZ is also considered that what they do is they basically put verified credentials and DIDs into one cool little identity so when you connect to a platform you can say I just want to share this part of my passport to get access to the platform and it basically confirms that I am a human being and I have the credentials that I need to access. I think these are going to become very, very common. But verified credentials are only as good as a system that issues them. So it doesn't matter if I make a decentralized application and issue myself a badge that says best designer in the world. It's irrelevant because it has no value. It has no reputation the system that issued it. So you actually need to think about who is issuing these things. You need to actually have a reputable issuer issuing reputable credentials so that the user can themselves become reputable. So it's really reputation all the way down. So you're going to see a lot of projects in the next few years issuing all of these badges and all of these verified credentials but you always have to think in the back of your mind who are they to be issuing these things. Do they have robust mechanisms in place and do they have a nuanced view of the world so that these issues or these credentials actually are fair and good for society and not just the next thing. So how does all of this change anything? At Common Ground we are building basically something which is decentralized collaboration coupled with verifiable credentials. So we want to be the intersection of this. We're building like this communication platform. And as I mentioned at the beginning interactions are where things happen. So what happens when you start using these verifiable credentials and start planning online spaces with them? This is where I think it gets very interesting because probably most of you use Discord. So Discord is a cognitive overload catastrophe. You join three communities and suddenly you're spammed with 7,000 notifications and then you're like I'm going to mute all of them and that's it, right? It's kind of pointless. So what happens if you actually start building areas which are more dynamic using verifiable credentials? So let's say that you have an online space where you have access to the areas that are destined for you based on the credentials that you have. So imagine you're a DAO and you can basically make a space for each of your working groups that people can only get into if they have the right verifiable credentials. And this can be an automatic process. So if I build up my reputation because I provide my services as a designer and then one day I'm designer level three, I automatically unlock access to the right space and everything else that I don't have access to is fuzzy and in the background. It doesn't cognitively overload me. I think this is the way that the internet is going to be shaped in the future which I think will make everything a little bit more focusing. What it also allows is more trustworthy interactions. So with this DID credential, for example, we can say only verified humans can talk in this chat for example. Twitter could tomorrow implement DIDs and the bot problem would to 99% be solved. It's just they're not Web3, they don't care, right? They're not going to do it but they could. The technology exists and there are applications right now saying only verified humans can use the app. So it basically means you're locked out of participation until you verify your humanity and you can do this in a privacy preserving way. What it also allows is for more concrete information. Maybe you shouldn't have access and a view of everything and here is an example of, for example, a governance vote that is restricted. So, for example, if somebody else should DEF CON give more swag, maybe only people who have attended DEF CON and have the verifiable credential that they did attend can vote in this thing because they are the only ones who know how much swag was given. So you don't suddenly allow everybody in the world with their token to participate only the ones who are relevant for the vote. And what this is going to do is also streamline entire industries and this is a big statement but I fully believe it. In fact, you could imagine that if Common Ground, which is my DAO, would choose to hire a senior designer, for example. I could set the verifiable credentials that we require the applicants to have. I could say it needs to be a designer level three. It needs to have a tested badge of being a good communicator and this person needs to have verified their humanity, for example. On the flip side, if I, Dominic, a designer looking for work, it would be as easy as enabling a toggle that says I'm available for jobs and then another toggle auto-submit my verifiable credentials to matching DAOs anonymously. You can imagine how suddenly the recruitment industry might get a little bit worried if this is how simple the process could be. You wouldn't need, like in LinkedIn, the interviews and the CV and the whatever, these credentials, if the system issuing them is trustworthy and reputable, then you can just set the verifiable credential that you need and suddenly people are matched. This thing can happen instantly and imagine multiplied by all DAOs and the entire workforce. Suddenly everybody gets matched in a system that is really robust. Oh, there we go. Summary. Okay, so just getting to the end now. Your online persona is about to get much richer and stickier with verifiable credentials. This is going to happen. You're already using them. Your driver's license is a credential. Your passport is a credential. Your university degree is a credential. This is now going to be translated into Web 3 and eternalized on the blockchain. So it's coming, whether you agree with it or not, it is going to come and I think we as designers should be very mindful of designing these systems in a way that makes society better and not worse. You also need the quality and social responsibility behind credentials. They really, really matter. So it really is all about reputable systems issuing reputable credentials that are well researched. So it actually causes public good and not more trouble. And finally, we're looking at fundamental changes in collective agency. So if we pull this off in a meaningful way, and this is going to be the challenge, then Web 2 organizations will not be able to compete with the synergy and the doubt-a-doubt collaboration that will be afforded by this change. Because they will have to transition quickly because of the fundamental changes that is going to be enabled by this in terms of collective agency. So I think that we are really talking about changes to the fabric of our society. And this maybe, it sounds like hyperbole, but if you look at the world how it is right now, I think we have to do better and I think this could be one thing that takes us there. So thank you very, very much for listening. Follow me on Twitter to grow my social capital. Questions? In terms of skills, I would say no. There is no issuer of skills that is yet at the degree of nuance and sophistication that there needs to be. If you start talking about issuer of decentralized identities as credentials, yeah, there's already loads. I mean, there's bright ID, there's fractal, there's lots of these projects that are trying to issue these credentials in the most privacy-preserving way. Whether or not those systems are perfect, I don't know. I don't think so. I think there's somebody from Worldcoin or whatever said they had two identities. So probably in some way it's gameable, but I think the systems of reputation that grow on top of those basic decentralized identities then will eventually build a better web of trust. So I would say, to answer your question, no, there is no reputable systems yet. This is super early. Hello. I love the concept, but I was wondering what happens with sensitive information? With sensitive information? Yes, because let's say we have a DAO and we say that only people verify credentials can access some information, but it doesn't prevent that I take a screenshot and share it with people who don't have the credentials. So how do we prevent that attack? Yeah, I mean, there's lots of security mechanisms to be able to prevent this. I mean, what we're talking about here, it's this kind of skill system that gets you the entry, right? But this is built together with an overall reputation system. So you could also say that it's a combination of trustworthiness via a matrix of skills and a participation in the platform that you can say only a person with a minimum trust can come in. If I break that trust, then maybe I'm slashed socially or in terms of tokens or in some way. Maybe there's even like a staking mechanism that if you enter, you need to stake your reputation. And if you misbehave and share screenshots, you are slashed in some way. So there are mechanisms that are very, very interesting to be able to address these problems. So native DAO workforce is a tiny, tiny fraction of the entire workforce. Yeah, tiny, yeah. So how would you see like the initial data dump, right? Like the bridge between the old ways of doing reputation, I don't know, degrees or work experience into these kind of things. So I think there's lots of ways to build a skill system, like the one that I was talking about here. For example, you could even start with self-assessment. So when you join the platform, you give an estimation of your skills and abilities. You rate yourself in this kind of nuanced contextual system. And then maybe others who know you or have worked with you can verify you over time. So you don't necessarily have to start a skill system at zero. You can self-assess and then stake certain things. And if you then live up to that self-assessment, then you can participate effectively in the system. If you don't live up to that self-assessment, then you are slashed in some way. So I think we need to, of course, be realistic. And we can't expect everybody to start at zero. Especially what happens if you've got an established skill system and then everybody has been there for five years and you get a new user who has nothing, they can't compete, right? So there needs to be a system of self-assessment and say, or somebody vouchers for you, somebody stakes their reputation and says, this person has the skills they say they have and if they don't, then they're both slashed. So there are mechanisms to get a head start in the skill system so that you don't get left behind. If that answers your question, ideal. Thank you. Great talk. So I'm just curious about your thoughts on China's reputational system because they gamify the way they want their population to behave. And that might not necessarily be for better? Yeah. But so you're talking about there's a social credit score in China, right? So I think the social credit score in China is a little bit different because it's tied to you as a person and there is nothing you can do about it because you will only ever be you. In Web 3, in theory, I could create a new wallet and generate a new identity and start from scratch. So there is ways for you to reinvent yourself in Web 3 without having to create a whole new identity. So it's not, I would say the same as the social credit score because that one you can never get rid of. The government has labeled you with it and there's nothing you can do. With these kinds of systems, you can create a new wallet and you're a new person. Okay, and follow up. How do you, how can we give opportunities to those that haven't proved the reputation because those are going to favor those who have been proven more? Yeah, so I think this goes a little bit back to the previous answer as well. So you'll be able to say that they are skilled in a certain thing and maybe there can then be a probational period, for example. If I say I'm a master designer and I join a DAO and they don't know, it's just self-assessed that I'm so good at design, then for example, if I start working with them, maybe the money that I earn is in an escrow account, so like a third party during this probational period, for example. And if I confirm to the DAO, if they say, actually this person has been doing a good job, then the money is paid out. Or if I don't live up to those expectations, then maybe that is slashed. Is that in the right direction? How do we discover the skill? I'm not sure I understand. Maybe we can talk later, sorry. Because I think this is a discussion, a large discussion. Anyone has any? Okay. And just the last one. So as you said, you're basically reinventing the wheel. The qualification and credentials system already exist in the non-digital world. I think the biggest problem of scaling it to the larger size is how you rate the issuers. So how you actually make sure that the people that give credentials are the reputable entities. Yeah, I think this is going to happen organically. I think there's going to be a lot of projects issuing a lot of credentials in the next few years. And I think it's going to happen organically based on how people interact with these credentials. So is there a threshold? Is the system robustly designed? Is the system transparent so people can understand how things are weighted and how you collect these badges and these skill systems? I think there's going to be an avalanche really of these skills systems and badge issuers and whatever. And it's going to take time for that kind of to stabilize and people are actually starting to realize which ones do we take seriously and which not. So I don't think it's as easy as somebody vetting an issuance system and saying this one's really good. I think it's going to happen more organically but this is just my opinion. Okay, that's it, huh? Okay, yep, we don't have much time. Thank you very much, everyone. Yeah.