West-coast based spatial data and analytics firm RMDS Lab plans to create the first-ever dedicated science NFT Marketplace before the end of the first quarter of the year.
RelatedReading Bitcoin Revisits $44k As Exchange Outflows See Uptick
RMDS Lab is known as a data and artificial intelligence (AI) platform based in California, and founded by IBM’s former chief data scientist Alex Liu in 2009 to create a global community of data scientists and researchers, and to promote scientific innovation through data and AI.
5 BTC + 300 Free Spins for new players & 15 BTC + 35.000 Free Spins every month, only at mBitcasino. Play Now!
As NFTs increased in popularity, RMDS says ‘a huge demand for NFT minting and listing’ played a part in RMDS’ decision to create a way to sell NFTs for research and technology-associated IP.
ETH: Ethereum is leading coin on the blockchain for NFTS. ETH-USD on TradingView.com
The NFT market rocketed almost 43,000% between 2020 and 2021, according to the cryptocurrency exchange Binance. RMDS’ goals in moving into NFT sales are to connect scientists with investors, as well as to link science and technology IP with related collectors, investors and science enthusiasts. The intent is to provide new fundraising channels for science and technology projects, and accelerate technology development. NFTs have mostly been art and music based, with gaming and literature joining in at times as well.
Get 110 USDT Futures Bonus for FREE!
Liu explained “for scientists, it is often difficult to get funding, and to get funding through the traditional channels takes a long time.” He added that “NFTs can simplify this and help people to focus more on their real work,” in a statement released by Chemistry World. “Also, scientists do not have many channels to reach investors, and an NFT marketplace can expand their reach.”
NFTs and science have already made a couple of moves that might of sparked the idea that science can in fact sell NFTs. In June 2021, The University of California, Berkeley announced that they will be auctioning off the patent disclosures behind two Nobel prize-winning discoveries made there by selling them as NFTs. They set aside part of a fundraising effort to support basic research at UC Berkeley; the plan worked out for the better, and the University earned $55,000 from an NFT that was based on James Allisons breakthrough research behind cancer immunotherapy back in the 1990s.
Liu acknowledges that the technology behind NFTs is still evolving and developing to address these environmental issues, as well as security and copyright issues. “We are connected to a lot of experts in blockchain AI, and we want to develop this marketplace,” he stated. “With our talent pool we want to help solve some of these problems and make NFT exchange better.”
The platform is still in developmental stages and is set to be completed by the end of March.
RelatedReading Bitcoin Is Massively Overvalued, Billionaire ’Bond King’ Jeff Gundlach
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists earlier this year voted to keep the hands of the Doomsday Clock that measures humanity’s likelihood of self-destructing closer to midnight than ever. One of those scientists is now leading a new generation of teachers fighting for our survival by changing the way we think about our place in space and time.
It’s the summer of 1969, but it may as well be today. A newly-formed womens’ rights group known as the Redstockings storms the New York State legislature to protest its handling of abortion laws. Armed members of the Black Panther Party take to the streets across America, protecting black citizens from police brutality. Two nuclear powers, China and the Soviet Union, battle over a disputed border in Manchuria.
Hovering high above, three Apollo 11 astronauts are cruising at 2,000 miles per hour towards the moon. This first sojourn of humans to the chalky, white orb is simultaneously a rallying cry for the great things the species is capable of doing, and a reminder of America’s ability to launch nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. The Doomsday Clock, created by Albert Einstein and others who helped invent the nuclear bomb, is set to 10 minutes till midnight. If the clock strikes 12, it’s unlikely anyone will know, as the world will have blinked out of existence in a nuclear flash.
As the spindly-legged Eagle moon-lander begins its 70-mile descent to the moon’s surface, a restless 31-year old nuclear physicist named Robert Socolow is just one of 500 million humans glued to their television sets. Shortly before sunset, in his young family’s ranch-style rental home near Stanford’s Linear Accelerator, Socolow’s wife Elizabeth brings their sleeping son David to the living room and places him in a blue crib they inherited from her parents. As astronaut Neil Armstrong takes his first step on the powdery surface, Socolow gently lifts the boy from the crib and sets him on his lap.
“We wanted him to see the moon landing,” says Elizabeth, now 81, recalling the moment from her home in Lawrenceville, New Jersey, 50-years later. “I could see him telling his own children he had seen the landing,” Rob chimes in from the back patio of his four-acre estate near Princeton. “That his dad had put him on his lap, facing the television as it was happening.”
At their rental home in California, physicist Robert Socolow holds his newborn son David in the summer of 1969.
Elizabeth Anne Socolow
Over the course of the next several years, the power of that black and white moment grew, impacting policy decisions and inspiring a new generation of academics. So, when the last crew to travel to the moon on Apollo 17 snapped a full-color high-resolution photo of the Earth, now known as The Blue Marble, the image sent shockwaves around the world. The tiny planet floating alone in a vast sea of blackness became an emblem that shifted the eons-old, tribal fight to survive to a planetary scale, says Socolow, now 83 and a professor emeritus at Princeton. “I single out the images of the Earth from space as having a kind of shock effect on our species. Virtually every university asked itself how it would respond to what was clearly some new agenda?”
As governments and businesses now prepare to take the first humans to other planets, Socolow’s answer to that question is only getting more refined. After co-founding Princeton’s environmental science program in 1971, he joined the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board and served on the committee that earlier this year voted to keep the Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight, the closest it’s ever been. Instead of just waiting and hoping things would improve, he’s taking matters into his own hands, teaching a small class he calls Destiny Studies, which moves beyond the sense of patriotism taught by institutions around the world to what he calls Planetary Identity, the sense that the bonds we’ve long experienced from coming from the same place could be extended far beyond tribal and national borders.
It turns out, he’s not alone. Countless other scientists and teachers around the world have been transformed by seeing the Earth as it truly was, floating and alone. Many of them are now working to better understand exactly why the change in perspective occurs, and figure out if maybe it can be taught on the grandest scale. If they’re successful, these scientists and teachers could change not just how we deal with nuclear weapons, global pandemics, and other emerging threats, but help build a new kind of identity—one embraced by future generations of astronauts on their way to Mars and beyond.
“We don’t know that there’s life anywhere else, and until such time as we do, we ought to consider ourselves to be something extraordinary in the universe, who are figuring out who we are,” says Socolow. “Planetary identity supplements the many other identities we have. We don’t think of our religion as detracting from our nationalism, or our affinity with a ball team from our cultural identity—they’re all parts of our identity that supplement and round out a personality. We have been delinquent in not bringing planetary thinking into science education from kindergarten on up.”
The Blue Marble Image, from 18,000 miles away.
NASA/Apollo 17 crew
Planetary Identity
Born on December 27, 1937, Socolow describes his childhood, growing up in a liberal Jewish New York neighborhood, as “cosmopolitan,” from the Greek for citizen of the cosmos. When he was eight, he enrolled at the progressive Walden School in New York, where instead of singing the Star Spangled Banner, the students sang the unofficial United Nations anthem. After a year in France studying with the non-profit “Experiment on International Living,” Socolow enrolled at Harvard University and studied theoretical high-energy physics under Kenneth Bainbridge, the former director of the Manhattan Project’s Trinity nuclear test.
While any serious scientist at the time was expected to advance rapidly from one course to another, as a sophomore, Socolow shocked his professors when he opted to study poetry under Pulitzer Prize winner Archibald MacLeish, whose poem Conquistador opened his eyes to the destruction that well-meaning colonists wrought in an attempt to spread their culture. “I’ve always been someone who said science is not enough,” says Socolow. “But it’s a part of it.”
In 1959, his career in physics was again delayed. Instead of going straight into the PhD program, Socolow accepted Harvard’s Frederick Sheldon travel fellowship and spent the potentially pivotal year of his career on the road. Instead of taking the “grand tour” of Europe, as past winners of the fellowship typically did, he cycled through Cambodia, took a train to Vietnam, a bus to India and a flight to East Africa. “It became clear to me that I was interested in the whole world, global issues, the way cultures connected, and how science fit into all of that,” he says. “I came back a global citizen.”
3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT | In 1960, after seven years set at two-minutes to midnight at the height of the Cold War, the Doomsday Clock was set back one minute, in part thanks to the Antarctic Treaty, which saw twelve nations agree not to militarize the southern continent.
Socolow’s travels abroad further spun him away from physics in the spring of 1969, when 44,000 Americans and countless Vietnamese had already been killed in the Vietnam War. More than a black and white story on television, color images of actual places he’d been and people he met swirled around his head. “I was feeling in my bones from that whole year of travel, that we were on the wrong side,” he says.
After spending much of the summer commuting back and forth between the Stanford Linear Accelerator and protests on the other side of the San Francisco Bay, at the University of Berkeley, the young Socolow helped organize a campus-wide event critiquing scientists’ complicity in the war. “The question I was asking at the time was, ‘If I’m going to leave pure science for something with social context, what’s that going to look like?’” says Socolow. “And I didn’t have a good answer.”
That all changed on July 21st, 1969, the morning after he set his son on his lap to watch the moon landing. He awoke to find the words of his college professor, Archibald MacLeish, documenting the epiphany he and the rest of the world had started to experience, seeing the Earth in the sky above, published on the front page of the New York Times:
…We stand here in the dusk, the cold, the silence…
and here, as at the first of time, we lift our heads.
Over us, more beautiful than the moon, a
moon, a wonder to us, unattainable,
a longing past the reach of longing,
a light beyond our light, our lives–perhaps
a meaning to us…
Earthrise Image, from 238,900 miles away.
Nasa/Apollo 8
He had found his answer. That summer, instead of returning to his work at the Linear Accelerator, he flew to Florida, and trying to better understand how plans for an airport would impact the native wildlife, canoed deep into a labyrinth of wetlands studying long-legged limpkins, pink flamingos, and reptilian-looking spoonbills. “The Earth was the system I was interested in,” says Socolow. “It’s nowhere near as universal as the universe. It is cascading down, not up, but down from the physics, which was about the neutron and the proton everywhere, Earth was a very special case. It was not as romantic as studying the universe. But it had ethical content, it was about what we were doing here on Earth, as a species.”
10 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT | Following the ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by the U.S. Senate, the Doomsday Clock was moved back the previous year from seven-minutes to midnight.
The Overview Effect
Illustration by Forbes
After the moon landing—and the flood of images that came with it—it became clear that Socolow was not the only one whose perspective was changing. Five months later, U.S. President Richard Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act, helping prevent the destruction of land used by threatened animals. The following April, Republican Senator Gaylor Nelson hosted the first Earth Day to draw attention to the impact humans were having on the planet.
Perhaps no one experienced the perspective of science “cascading down” more than the astronauts spiraling the earth. While Socolow’s perspective—and much the rest of the so-called terranauts—evolved after seeing images on a screen, the astronauts experienced this new vantage point in high-definition, full-color, zero-gravity reality. In his 1974 book Carrying the Fire, Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins described the experience of seeing the Earth from space as “invaluable to getting people together to work out joint solutions, by causing them to realize that the planet we share unites us in a way far more basic and far more important than differences in skin color or religion.”
In many ways, this paradigm shift culminated on February 14, 1990, just as Voyager 1 approached the edge of our solar system. At the recommendation of Pulitzer Prize-winning astronomer Carl Sagan, the NASA engineers on Earth turned around the spaceship’s camera and snapped a photo of our home from nearly four billion miles away. Any further, and the few blueish pixels that represented the Earth would have vanished completely. “A pale blue dot,” as Sagan described what he saw in his 1994 book on the experience. “The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life,” he wrote. “Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.”
The Earth seen from 3.7 billion miles away, remastered in 2020.
Nasa/Voyager 1
By 2014, this sense of epiphany—that the planet is fundamentally borderless and alone—had touched so many lives that Harvard professor Frank White coined the phrase “Overview Effect” to describe it. “Some common aspects of [the Overview Effect] are a feeling of awe for the planet,” he writes in his book named after the effect. “A profound understanding of the interconnection of all life, and a renewed sense of responsibility for taking care of the environment.”
Retired U.S. Army colonel, Jeffrey Williams, 63, says that during his record-setting 534 days on the International Space Station he was at first struck by an affinity with his present and past homes. Then, after countless orbits around the earth, the amateur photographer slowly started to identify with places he’d seen on previous cycles of the same trip, until at last his identity itself began to scatter. Author of the 2010 book The Work of His Hands: A View of God’s Creation from Space, Williams says he now feels a sense of duty to use the photographs he took as a tool to bring people “vicariously” to the perspective. “When we have tensions at the highest levels that are very public, it’s very important to appreciate and understand and foster and empower the positive engagements that we have,” he says. “Dealing with people is the same everywhere in the world, often in contrast to the way administrations publicly deal with each other.”
Awe and Wonder
k
t
In early 2011, Williams had a unique opportunity to fulfill his mission to help others vicariously see through his eyes. An international team of scientists, philosophers and artists approached him as part of their preparation for a number of experiments being developed at the University of Central Florida, just a 30-minute drive from The Kennedy Space Center, where eleven years earlier he launched on his first trip to space. Designed by cognitive scientist Shaun Gallagher, the experiments would test if the Overview Effect that had changed Socolow and others’ perspectives could be taught in a lab.
6 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT | In part as a result of U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev agreeing to nuclear arms negotiations, the Doomsday Clock was set back one minute.
With a grant from the John Templeton Foundation and help from virtual reality professor at Humboldt University, Jörg Trempler, the first experiment simulated a work desk on the International Space station. Standing in a room outside the Virtual Space Lab, research assistant and PhD candidate Patricia Bockelman addressed 38 psychology students who volunteered for a battery of tests and a new kind of flight simulation. “Welcome to your pre-flight preparation,” she said. “Let’s begin the first phase by having you follow me to the cockpit where we will begin your astronaut qualification examination.”
As part of “suiting up” for the virtual space trip, the students answered a battery of questions about whether they were right-handed, color-blind, or believed in god. Alpha, theta, and beta waves emitted from the students’ brains during the test were measured by nine electrodes affixed to a cap on the student’s head with a tenth electrode measuring their heartbeat. Bockelman then drew back a black curtain revealing two massive 120 degree screens behind portholes riveted to the wall.
One by one, the students entered a chamber described in the 2015 book on the experiments, A Neurophenomenology of Awe and Wonder, as a “virtual Plato’s cave.” Mimicking the restricted movement of an actual space flight, they were strapped into a chair. Lights in the room dimmed and the sounds of rockets blared through speakers so loud the room shook. “We tried to put them in a frame of mind where they were expecting to be launched into space,” says Gallagher, now 72, and a professor at the University of Memphis. As the sounds of the rockets dimmed, a pale blue image depicting a crescent-shaped sliver of the earth slowly rotated into view.
For 24 minutes the subjects were silently shown images of the earth, the International Space Station and finally the stars of deep space. A second experiment depicted a virtual launch from the iconic University of Central Florida campus, whose concentric paths around the student union emulate the Kennedy Center launch site. Instead of a rapidly pounding heartbeat, as the scientists expected, the subjects appeared to enter a meditative state with an ever-slowing pulse. Sifting through hours of interviews with the test subjects, the researchers identified 42 instances of what they describe as a change in moral perspective, and 22 instances each of contentment, inquisitiveness, and insignificance compared to the vastness of space. Far from a jarring experience, the perspective seemed to calm them. 39 subjects in the second experiment experienced a clear sense of awe and wonder.
One 19-year-old female psychology student, identified in the book only as Participant 44, put it this way: “You’re [not just] looking at pictures and saying, ‘Oh, this is China,’ and, ‘Oh, this is what the sun looks like.’ Instead you see all of it, all at once and you think, oh, this is what everything looks like put together.” At at least this basic level, the Overview Effect was indeed teachable.
One of the Neurophenomenology of Awe and Wonder’s co-authors, philosopher Bruce Janz, sees a larger impact of the Overview Effect than just the breaking down of national borders. The co-director of the University of Central Florida’s Center for Humanities and Digital Research, Janz studies the impact of modern technology on human consciousness. A dual citizen, born in Canada and now living in the United States, Janz specializes in how concepts of place are influenced by the spaces in which they’re set—in the Awe and Wonder experiments, how the concept of one’s self is influenced by where we are on Earth, and how our concepts of the Earth are influenced by whether or not we see the planet firmly planted beneath our feet or hovering in empty space.
Janz suggests that the experience of physical borders being broken down since technology opened up travel and communication, is echoed in the breaking down of other borders that define gender, sexuality, food, language, and more. He says the resulting fear, experienced by many of those forced to see themselves as inherently connected to people they disagree with, could be in part to blame for the recent reaction against globalization: the building of walls on previously open borders, the dissolution of international unions, and a fear of anything seen as homogenizing culture.
To combat this fear, a vital component of Socolow’s Planetary Identity, Janz proposes a new understanding of globalization, which he calls “glocalization.” Janz’s own paradigm shift presents hospitality as a way to interact with the ever-increasing number of strangers we confront, without sacrificing one’s national, tribal and other identities. “There is a certain approach to hospitality, which is both about the person you’re meeting and about the examination of yourself in that context,” he says. “In the world of glocalization, or borderlessness, we have the resources within us, if only we’re willing to let go of what we think our certainties are, and actually encounter something new.”
Building on what he learned from the experiments, in September Janz applied for a grant from the Department of Defense’s Minerva Research Initiative on social science to better understand the impact of remoteness on astronauts traveling to Mars and beyond. “No human has ever been out of sight of either the Earth or the moon,” he says. “And of course, we need different tools to think about living as humans when we are out of that range.”
Destiny Studies
Illustration by Forbes
For much of the last nine years Socolow has been helping create those tools by developing more than just a class on Planetary Identity, but an entirely new field, which he calls Destiny Studies. After first describing the field in February 2012 during a keynote address to the Vanderbilt Law Review, he codified its mission in an article for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. “The goal,” he wrote, “should be to foster science and technology, to intensify planetary consciousness, to strengthen those international institutions that reinforce the reality that all countries are in one boat, to resist over managing the planet, and to learn to think coherently about future time.”
In a baton-passing ceremony of sorts, the professor emeritus at Princeton’s Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering celebrated his retirement in April 2019 by inviting speakers from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, Caltech, Georgetown, the University of São Paulo, U.C. Berkeley, Harvard and elsewhere to participate in a daylong event called “Destiny Studies for a Small Planet.” Gathering at Princeton’s Andlinger Center for Energy and Environment, the group of leaders addressed an audience of about 200 people to describe what Destiny Studies means through diverse lenses including geophysics, finance, energy and law.
Judge Edith Brown Weiss, 79, from the International Monetary Fund’s Administrative Tribunal, and a professor at Georgetown Law, spoke about her work helping the Hague establish a theoretical framework that views resources as part of a planetary trust, creating what she calls intergenerational equity. “Those of us living today have to pass the Earth and our natural and cultural resources to future generations in at least as good condition as we received them, so that they can meet their own needs,” she says.
100 SECONDS TO MIDNIGHT | In 2020, following the end to a number of arms treaties and government unwillingness to act on climate change, the Doomsday Clock is set closer to midnight than ever, a position reaffirmed the following year.
As Socolow laid the formal foundation for Destiny Studies in Princeton, similar endeavors were spontaneously emerging around the world. In 2010, 40 schools and 800 teachers from Austria, Benin, Brazil, the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic created the Global Curriculum Project, aimed at helping educators from any discipline adopt their existing curricula to connect the “micro-realities” at school, at home and in cities to the “macro-reality” of the planet. “It is vital to raise new generations with a global/planetary conscience in order to assure sustainability of life on Earth,” wrote professors Madza Ednir and Débora Maria Macedo from Brazilan non-profit Centro de Criação de Imagem Popular in a paper published by the Journal of Field Actions.
Among a number efforts that have sprung up over the years to teach planetary identity and related concepts is the Ecole Urbaine de Lyon’s School of Anthropocene, which for the past three years has been developing the Anthropocene Manifesto, an evolving document about what it feels like to be an Earthling; the JP Morgan-funded MIT Center for Collective Intelligence to help large numbers of people communicate peacefully and to better predict the future; and Stanford’s Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere, which develops strategies for shifting the way cultures deal with a wide range existential threats.
Pensive Socolow at his April 2019 Symposium.
Sameer A. Khan
In the fall of 2020, just a short drive from where Socolow lives, NYU philosophy professor and author of Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, Kwame Anthony Appiah, hunkered down in the attic of a farmhouse to teach an online class on what Aristotle, Confucius, and Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali have to say about successfully living in a community. As Covid-19 was about to take its one-millionth victim, over 50 students from China, Nigeria, the United States and across Europe gathered remotely, virtually raising their hands to ask questions. At the click of a button, Appiah changed the view of his personal library behind him to the Vatican library in Rome and Michel de Montaigne’s office in the south of France.
“We’re all together, because we’re thinking about global issues,” says Appiah, 67. “But they’re not abandoning their homes, they’re rooted in where they are, but desperately keen to interact with people from other places.”
Appiah too was inspired by the moon. Back in the summer of 1969, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean from where the Socolows watched the landing, the 15-year-old London-native, raised in Ghana, was dialing the knobs on his brand-new silver boombox to record a radio signal broadcasting the same event. “I just wanted some record of having been there when our species did this thing for the first time,” reflects Appiah. “In the very longest of long term, the only way our species or the species that descends from us will survive is if we figure out how to get to the cosmos, and this was the first step.”
As the Doomsday Clock approaches its 75th anniversary in January, the man who Bulletin president Rachel Bronson calls the “institutional memory” of the organization continues his own work with new ways to implement some of the first Destiny Studies courses in a series of freshman seminars called “Time Capsules for Climate Change to be Opened At Your Reunions.” For the past five years he’s taught a group of interdisciplinary Princeton students to analyze contingencies for how problems like pollution or transportation might play out over generations and millennia. Will electric cars be little more than toys for the rich, for example, or will they dominate global transportation? The main objective, as he wrote in his own letter deposited in the latest time capsule earlier this month, is to expand the students’ “range of empathy” across both space, and time.
“You will be engaged by the challenge of sharing the planet, both spatially and temporally,” he writes. “Inventing ways to make human aspirations less injurious to the planet.” On December 9, he and the nine students in his latest class delivered the letter and their own contributions to the university library, which will store it until their graduation in 2025, their 10th reunion, their 20th reunion and their 50th reunion. “When you read this essay,” he concludes. “I expect that you will find that I have been no better than you at anticipating the future. In 2050 and 2075, give me a shout in heaven to let me know.”
MORE FROM FORBES
MORE FROM FORBESAmazon And UPS Are Betting This Electric Aircraft Startup Will Change ShippingBy Jeremy BogaiskyMORE FROM FORBESMiley Cyrus Is A Rebel For Her Own CauseBy Alexandra SternlichtMORE FROM FORBES2021 Forbes Holiday Gift Guide: An A-To-Z List Of Letter-Perfect PresentsBy Michael SolomonMORE FROM FORBESCalifornia SchemingBy Matt Schifrin
In a previous piece I argued that Bitcoin provides society with the strongest possible truth-based foundation from which to build upon and that therefore its widespread adoption is necessary for life on earth to take its next great leap forward. I believe this leap forward will be driven primarily by strengthening human connections thus resulting in a stable matrix of minds bound together by reliable consensus. This mind matrix in its fullest form will be analogous to the way in which gravity weaves together all matter and provides the stable conditions for complex life to evolve.
Bitcoin is the inter-universal constant that the human hive mind has been searching for since we split from the apes many hundreds of thousands of years ago. It is the constant required for the construction of a global and timeless human civilization. Its closest correlate in the physical realm is the gravitational constant of classical physics known as Big G, or 6.674×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2 . Big G or “gravitational constant” is the force that binds all matter to all other matter. A striking thing to consider is that there literally exists gravitational attraction between all physical things. Your pinky feels the pull of Pluto, and Alpha Centauri feels the pull of your big toe. Each atom is sovereign unto itself and is affected by gravity but also emanates gravity to all other atoms.
OK fine, but what the hell is meant by “inter-universal?” To paraphrase Walt Whitman, “the human mind is a universe unto itself (I contain multitudes).” While our inner worlds are unspeakably vast, we nonetheless can feel the boundaries and wonder what lies on the other side. Looking into my wife’s eyes, the black holes of her pupils feel at once familiar and foreign. How can one not wonder what goes on deep within those inky wells? What is it like to be someone else? We can never fully know. Each human mind then is distinct and sovereign, but also isolated in some tragic way. The human mind yearns for connection, it yearns to know that it’s not alone and that reality is not just its own elaborate hallucination. A strong connection to another person not only ameliorates isolation but also expands one’s own horizons by bringing the mind into contact with all the incongruencies of another. These new ideas now have the potential to expand or otherwise transfigure one’s own mental landscape. This is what drives our social instinct.
Society can therefore be thought of as a collection of personal universes connected in meaningful ways. You could say that the degree of interpersonal connection is also the degree to which a society can be said to exist at all. Connections require bridges. The bridges that are erected between human minds are love and consensus. Loving someone is like opening a Lightning channel in which benevolent attention is the currency (and like the Lightning Network’s liquidity, it can go one way). Consensus (like validating) is an overlap of mental states that allows distinct minds to temporarily experience a shred of oneness. An agreement on something, however trivial it may be, is a recognition of some similarity between two sovereign minds. It is a confirmation that you are not alone and it opens up the possibility for collaboration thereby extending each individual’s personal capabilities. This is the basis upon which trade and entire economies are built and the font from which much of the world’s wealth flows. Agreement can be golden. But it can also be fragile, as can be love.
Today’s fracturing world makes it abundantly obvious that even the most stalwart institutions, which are really just large conglomerations of consensus, can fail. Institutions such as democracy, religion, the press, the healthcare system, the education system and the “free market” exhibit the same frailty as individual relationships. Bridges of connection are built and fade away. They are ephemeral. This too shall pass. Love, trust, and agreement can be broken and lost; returning us to more isolated and therefore less capable states.
In many ways the story of history has been the story of humanity striving to construct more elaborate and more robust connective tissue between human minds; to bridge the lonely multitudes. But alas, there has never been a universal bridge or a universal constant of human connectivity from which to build these bridges. Thus far there have only been localized versions prone to failure and erosion; incapable of achieving escape velocity on a global and timeless scale. These local bridges allow one person to love another, and for bands of people to temporarily agree on things, even cosmic things such as life, death and the afterlife. But as the scale of these bridges in both time and space increases, their stability wanes until a breaking point is reached. None are universally stable.
Let’s compare again the human hive mind with its many ephemeral connections to the physical realm. If gravity were similarly localized, it would be like a universe in which the gravitational constant only extends for a few square miles or a handful of years before disintegrating and changing. This kind of flux would prohibit complex life from forming and thriving. Everything you see around you would turn to a chaotic gaseous goo. There would be no stars and no planets. No puddles or oceans from which life could unfold.
Our human world suffers from a similar state of instability. Who owes who what? What is fair? When value is created can it flow freely like a river and pool in areas of greatest depth? Can its stewards count on its properties and its magnitude in order to undertake long term projects of great complexity yielding transcendent value? Sadly the answer is no. Bitcoin however is a universal constant for human connectivity. It is the same for everyone everywhere and it is likely to persist for a very long time. No one can take my bitcoin. No one can dilute it. No one can stop me from sending it to anyone in the world. Every transaction is predicated on the rock solid consensus of the network but also the voluntary consensus between the two transacting parties. For the first time we have a consensus mechanism that exists beyond the reach of individual human meddling and therefore optimizes interpersonal consensus. Bitcoin aligns incentives and grows from adversity in a way that yields an ever increasing bedrock of truth. Human minds, like matter bound together by gravity, now have ironclad bridges to every other human mind that exists and potentially to every human mind that will ever exist. We can now project our value and values with higher fidelity than ever before. Shifting one’s energy and life force into the Bitcoin network therefore helps shift human enterprise into a realm where gravity exists, where the principles of engineering allow for sound construction, and where human connections can strengthen and proliferate.
Gravity gave us galaxies, stars, planets and life in the physical realm. Bitcoin may enable similar emergent majesty in the more abstract realm of the human hive mind. May we use this new-found power to enhance human flourishing and advance this shared project called civilization. May we use the growing mind matrix created by Bitcoin as a foundation to build a more beautiful world.
This is a guest post by Fangorn. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.
The etymology of the word digit is Latin. Digitus: Finger, toe. Humans have been using their digits to count for thousands of years. It could be the case that our modern decimal system, or base ten number system, an extension of Hindu-Arabic counting systems, arose from counting on ten fingers. There are other base number systems, such as the Roman numeral system which uses an intermediate base of five. Digits are composed of and used to represent data, they are a way of gathering and organizing data from physical and hypothetical worlds. The important thing to remember about the evolution of digits is that all measurement requires interaction.
Similarly, Bitcoin is a way of gathering and organizing data from digital and hypothetical worlds. It must be stressed that before Bitcoin, it was impossible to associate events with points of time in decentralized systems. Bitcoin reunited money as symbol to its referent: work. It is this work that tethers Bitcoin the digital asset and energy with the physical world. (Although one could argue that the physical world and the digital world are from a certain vantage the same, this is a discussion for another time.)
Since its advent, we are still learning the full implications of the first terminally scarce form of property and energy that can be stored indefinitely. The important thing to remember is that Bitcoin is the only monetary measure, or system of accounting that is both decentralized and ungovernable. This means that as an economic measure, and store of value, Bitcoin is the least corruptible. It is the only form of ungovernable money, energy, and property at once.
For centuries our best explanations of the physical world were severely limited by the empirical fallacy. That is, our methods of measurement and understanding were limited by what we could immediately observe and experience. It wasn’t until the 15th century that Copernicus evidenced that our solar system is heliocentric, rather than geocentric. Still, without this knowledge many people today live with the empirical misunderstanding that the observable universe appears to rotate around the Earth.
Think of the empirical fallacy as a faulty frame of reference. We know in fact that our solar system and our sun are moving and rotating around the Milky Way, which is itself involved in complex motion. Everything that is, is moving. Although, with a limited frame of reference, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Imagine dragging files from your computer desktop into the trashcan icon. You observe it to be the case that you have thrown those files away, though this is by design. It’s an empirical error of observation. There is a better explanation, and it’s found on the back end of the user experience. Our knowledge about our environment at large is always limited in such a way.
All centralized systems are subject the empirical fallacy. While centralized systems can be workable on some scales over what seems to us a long time, they are operating under what is ultimately a faulty frame of reference.
Bitcoin can associate events with points of time from a decentralized vantage. The full implications of this novel perspective on the financial world and beyond are not yet understood. Bitcoin cannot be fully comprehended by humans as centralized, isolated consciousnesses. But certainly all that is knowable about Bitcoin could be grasped by the hive mind of the internet.
Now, consider any avenue of science you like. Take science to mean a method, a measuring process which gives us the best explanation for the way things are. There is no reason to believe humans have evolved to do good science. That is, in our current state, the vast majority of occurrences in this universe are too fast or too slow, too large, too small, too far, or invisible to our centralized, empirically limited frame of reference.
We have done well to expand our frame of reference and get outside of the empirical fallacy on many fronts in science. But until Bitcoin, it bears repeating that it was impossible to to associate events with points of time in decentralized systems. Our financial and foundational proprietary frames of reference were limited in the same way empiricism restricted us to a rather one dimensional tunnel vision of the universe.
Bitcoin emerged, in part, from an effort to work around trusting third parties to time stamp digital documents. Centralized time servers are inaccurate to degrees that may seem minute to humans, but in terms of ordering transactions on a ledger, it is imperative that there be no discrepancy. Remember that even the time dilation between a person on the ground and a person on a plane is enough to make ledger ordering inaccurate, this why Bitcoin doesn’t rely on any third-party time-keeping server.
Bitcoin is the first ungovernable monetary system that provides depth and dimension through its decentralization to not only our financial universe, but our scientific understanding at large. Bitcoin allows anyone to accumulate property and allocate resources without restriction. Bitcoin’s terminal scarcity ensures competition in the market. That is, knowing that Bitcoin is scarce, and that its demand is ever increasing, you will likely be careful about what projects you allocated your hard-earned Bitcoin to.The opportunity cost for spending Bitcoin is extremely high, at its current stage many find there is no asset they would rather hold, and as a result, do not spend Bitcoin at all.
Today science isn’t competitive, because it is not allowed to fail. Whole sectors of invented subjects are financially supported by government printing. With mass adoption, Bitcoin enables the freest market we have known, as the transactions are unstoppable and can be allocated toward any project one chooses.
What does this have to do with science? Centralized systems potentiate the disastrous rise in misplaced power. We’ve seen this time and time again. Within our university and scientific communities, it is the centralized issuance and reliance upon government funds that allows for all the misplaced energies and undue emphasis on increasingly arcane and soft science subject matter. Any study a centralized system funds forms with overwhelming bias of consequence. The government and its myriad of centralized institutional branches are constantly leading us on what we can best describe as a wayward path to societal and technological progress.
Once established, these institutions do not go gently. Yet they serve no value to the world in exchange for funding. That is, if you were to put any centralized institution on a free market, they would rapidly go bankrupt. Institution’s success is at comical odds with the products they’re offering. (This is something Kafka knew innately.) Thus, all centralized institutions are ailing of entropy, and must seek increasingly arcane topics, or birth new branches to stir up more debt, and invent entirely new areas of study that serve no real world application.
The dollar has no way of staving off entropy except through a charade of crises algebra. The dollar will be debased endlessly because it has no peg to our physical world, and doesn’t have a supply cap. Rather, the dollar is haphazardly pegged to institutions which are governed by the will of a few. Imagine a world where we could each vote whether the dollar should be debased or not. In that world, a wide and thoroughly representative financial democracy is still no better than the current fiat system because the will of a few or the will of many are still stripping individuals of their property through inflation. If you consider your dollars to be property, it is a communal land at best. Governance will always plague fiat systems. Not so in Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is the only system which allows you to retain your property, regardless of what changes the majority choose to make. Without technology built on decentralized money and property immune to governance, our understanding of what goes on in the universe will remain severely limited, myopic in scope.
At a smaller scale, our genes vary randomly as we evolve to promote their own production, and not necessarily to advance and continue our species or inhibit our individual destruction. We have not evolved to perceive the universe as it actually is. Not by a long shot. Nearly all of what happens at any given moment is not being observed. What if any given moment is legion? (If we are to consider our existence as an ancestral simulation, it would be computationally intractable to render reality where it is not being perceived. It would take solar systems worth of energy to render any given simulation in “whole” for a moment. This of course begs the question what and whose experiences count as perceiving? All questions for another time.)
What Bitcoin offers us is a way of measuring distributed experiences and occurrences through a dematerialized, network of interaction with the world. Bitcoin is both particle and wave, property and energy.
Without decentralized technology built on decentralized money, our understanding of what goes on in the universe will be severely limited in scope. Without offloading knowledge into texts and computers we don’t have an accurate or large enough memory to process very much data.
Most of us have virtual extensions of ourselves. Before the internet, two people communicating had only the imperfect knowledge each harbored in their body to create good explanations on the spot. Today we carry digital extensions of our brains with us. We have an ever widening bandwidth of access to knowledge. But Bitcoiners also carry their property with them. Any amount of Bitcoin as property is free for individuals to hold and travel with, and can be transacted and achieve final settlement final settlement for negligible fees. (The last part will not always be the case, but that is the topic of another essay.)
Currently we are limited in our access to knowledge again by an empirical error. Today our ability to retrieve digital knowledge efficiently is severely limited by our digits. Most of our daily interaction with computers is through our fingertips. This will not always be the case. Eventually we will directly access the vast external flow of digital information with our brains. How will this complicate the brain body relationship? What will this do to language? These vary same questions can be asked of Bitcoin, which dematerialized our access to and relationship with property, money, and energy.
Binary number systems (base two) are used in modern computers. One of the efficient functions of binary systems is that they can take many binary inputs (data) and produce a single binary output. The Bitcoin blockchain also condenses a wealth of monetary information and work into a single output, a ledger that exists over a network. It takes many real world inputs and produces a single, consensual distributed cyber ledger.
This condensation of information is partly why computers are getting smaller while their capacity for information storage expands. In comparison, humans do not store information perfectly or efficiently in our heads, but our bodies do produce a small amount of electricity. Our cells use electrical signals to communicate.
Although, we have never been able to store knowledge perfectly in our bodies, we have generated languages, texts and digital computers to offload this task. Without these tools much of what we do in a day would be impossible. Our phones and virtual presences store knowledge, evidence of the past, photos, and texts in a way our bodies cannot. Similarly, Bitcoin allows us to store physical energy as monetary value in a way that was not possible before. One day, much of what we do in a day, technologically and financially, will be impossible without Bitcoin.
26 September 2021
Read The Language of Bitcoin: 6: “MircroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor Interview: The Predator Prey Dynamics of Bitcoin”
Read The Language of Bitcoin: 5: “Bitcoin Has No Competition”
Read The Language of Bitcoin: 4: “Bitcoin And Existential Risk”
Read The Language of Bitcoin: 3: “Bitcoin: The First and Final Rival Money”
Read The Language of Bitcoin: 2: “Bitcoin Alleviates Future Uncertainty”
Read The Language of Bitcoin: 1: “BTC Is The Best Explanation For The Way Money Is”
Over the first three years of the Forbes Blockchain 50, our list of billion-dollar companies making meaningful use of the technology popularized by bitcoin, has become a bellwether of institutional adoption. Our list shines light on how large corporations—often household names like Walmart and Novartis— are using blockchain tech to improve business processes and become more efficient and profitable. Now is your chance to help us find the best possible honorees for next year.
Each year’s list, which requires that members be valued at $1 billion or more, or generate $1 billion in revenue, has demonstrated the technology’s wide and growing geographic and industry reach. Over time, it has shifted from a focus on early stage proof of concept projects to functioning technology with giant transaction volumes. And it has increasingly featured consumer-facing companies, rather than only B2B players.
In other words, the distributed ledger technology that lets a group of users agree on a single truth, and prove that a digital object is only in one place at a time, is actually being used. And it’s not only being used by nimble startups with little to lose, but also by generations-old enterprises with some of the best known and trusted names in the world: Fidelity, Honeywell, Visa and the NBA.
Forbes Blockchain 50 – Inside The Class Of 2021
With the rapid rise of bitcoin, which this year reached an all time high of $64,000, the number of companies aiming to capitalize on the original digital asset has surged. What began with cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, which made the first list in 2019 when bitcoin was only worth $5,000 and went public this year with an $86 billion direct listing, has expanded to include companies such as business analytics firm MicroStrategy, which essentially turned itself into bitcoin ETF by holding more than $5 billion worth of bitcoin.
“There is going to be more change in the next 5 years than we have seen in the last 30 years in the financial system,” said Dan Schulman, the CEO of Blockchain 50 lister, PayPal, speaking at last year’s Blockchain 50 Symposium. “And I think digital currencies are going to lead the way.”
Forbes
Know a company whose blockchain innovation is under-appreciated? Let us know now, and help us spread the word using #Blockchain50 on Twitter. Has your company been overlooked in the past, or fallen off the list, but is breaking new ground by making real strides with blockchain? Let us know how. Do you work at one of the nine firms that has been on the list all three years, and is still leading the way? We want to know what the company is doing that merits it remaining on the list.
The nomination deadline is Friday, November 5. Once the nomination period ends, a team of Forbes reporters and editors will sort through the nominees, looking for the most mature blockchain programs run by the most talented teams in the world. Winners will be revealed in a 2022 magazine issue, and online.
Everledger CEO Leanne Kemp talks to CSIRO’s Professor Claudia Vickers to explore the vast possibilities for synbio in meeting the urgent need for the circular economy.
Honeybee silk, produced via a synbio process at CSIRO that allows industrial-volume silk production … [+]at room temperature using sustainable resources.
CSIRO
Climate change is fast becoming the mother of invention. Around the world, we’re seeing an explosion of eco-centric start-ups and tech-for-good founders who recognize the worth – both environmentally and financially – in pursuing new solutions that will help decarbonize the planet and accelerate progress towards net zero emissions. The World Economic Forum (WEF) has released the Great Reset initiative, which aims to urgently rebuild the foundations of our economic and social system for a more fair, sustainable, and resilient future. And the WEF is calling for greater support and prominence for social entrepreneurs.
Synthetic biology (synbio) has emerged as a rapid growth industry, with the global value of synbio technologies and products projected to reach almost $20 billion by 2024. Hundreds of startups are setting up, especially in the Bay Area, the UK, and in Australia, while R&D institutions are winning public funds to expand and upgrade their laboratories. CSIRO estimates that by 2040 this industry might revolve around USD$2-4 Trillion dollars in direct economic impact. The areas with the most potential include human health, agriculture, consumer goods and materials.
In simple terms, synbio is about designing useful things from the building blocks of life, using DNA as the code. You take a plentiful biological feedstock – such as table sugar from sugar cane – and then convert it through fermentation into something that’s hundreds or even thousands of times more valuable. Think green plastics or petroleum substitutes, even building materials.
Last week I had a conversation with Professor Claudia Vickers, Director of the Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia’s national science agency. She commented: “Synbio is similar to making beer or wine, in that it uses microorganisms such as yeast. We want to make natural biochemicals that have industrial applications, but aren’t available in nature at levels that are economically viable. They might be pharmaceuticals, which are high value and can be produced economically at relatively low volumes, or things like food and feed ingredients which are lower value and need to be produced at medium to high levels to be economically viable.”
MORE FOR YOU
Perhaps the most topical examples of synthetic biology are the mRNA coronavirus vaccines – a novel technology developed, tested, and delivered within 12 months of the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Alternative proteins are also an exciting area, given the high carbon footprint of meat production. For instance, the Impossible Burger in San Francisco has created headlines for using a plant protein called leghaemaglobin that gives the same sizzle and texture of a beef patty on the grill. And the Australian company Nourish Ingredients makes fats and oils that make plant-based proteins taste more like the animal alternatives, but keeps the product animal-free.
Synbio can also be used to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Another compound, produced from red seaweed, not only causes a cow to produce less methane, but also provides a more natural way of promoting weight gain. Meanwhile in fashion, Bolt Threads’ spider silk will appear in Stella McCartney’s fabrics, and Spiber has partnered with North Face in Japan.
Biological revolution
CSIRO BioFoundry – from L to R: Dr Janet Reid, Mr Huw Hayman Zumpe, Professor Claudia Vickers
CSIRO
But can synbio deliver solutions at scale? Claudia certainly thinks so. “We live in incredible times,” she said. “The pandemic has highlighted to humanity the power and danger of biology, while underlining the amazing ability we now have to engineer solutions to biological threats. It’s the age of the biological revolution. Advances in the reading and the writing of DNA are now progressing at a much faster rate than the IT revolution, according to Moore’s Law, where the number of transistors on a microchip doubles every two years, though the cost of computers is halved.”
Language such as ‘biology manipulation’ inevitably sparks conversations about Frankenstein foods and playing with nature. However, Claudia was quick to point out that this technology doesn’t exist in a vacuum. “We know that genetic modification is controversial and we acknowledge our responsibility to conduct research ethically and within regulations. We also know that many people are curious, hopeful and excited about how the emerging field of synthetic biology could address environmental, health and agricultural problems.”
On behalf of the WEF’s Future Science Council on Synthetic Biology, she is working with colleagues to draw up the values to guide development and broaden the geographical innovation that feeds into synthetic biology globally. Equity, sustainability, solidarity and humility are the four key themes for helping to expose systemic challenges and opportunities.
Full circle: tracking provenance
DNA is effectively a simple code. Similar to digital data, it can be tagged with signatures and markers. Claudia has spotted the possible crossover with other technologies: “Synbio brings together many different disciplines, including computer and social sciences. I can see a natural fit with, say, blockchain as a mechanism to identify and track provenance. Blockchain could help provide transparency and traceability to bioengineering.”
This is where a lot of her research converges with the work of blockchain-powered traceability solutions, such as those adopted by companies as far apart as apparel from fashion houses and electric vehicle manufacturers tracking their end-of-life batteries.
The WEF is also exploring these possibilities on behalf of their business and government partners. As Claudia points out: “In fact, molecular provenance plays into the values for the WEF, as equity demands that we understand the origin of every strand of biological code – and that any value and benefits are returned to the communities from whence that DNA or piece of biological material came from. Stakeholder capitalism – where sustainability considerations are driving purchasing decisions – is becoming a much more significant part of the economic ecosystem. Blockchain can help in tracing the circular journey of biomaterials.”
Claudia and I believe that to get to a sustainable economy, we need to install a dramatically different economic system. That means shifting from a single-use petrochemical economy to a circular, bio-based economy. In cities, something like 40 or even 50% of food doesn’t even reach our plates. Claudia points out that synbio offers the potential for society to recycle carbon and energy through fermentation in a local bio-based system. Likewise, think of the tonnage of fibres and fabrics, which are tossed into landfill every day. These could be broken down into fermentable carbon sources, which would contribute to the circular economy as well.
“Our ability right now to engineer biology has never been more important,” said Claudia. “We could live sustainably as a species, but all indications suggest that in developed economies, people are not prepared to make those life choices. Instead, we are gambling that scientists and engineers will come up with technologies to deal with the situation. From where I’m sitting, biology is really the only technology that can deliver sustainable solutions.”
Next steps
We are both optimistic that bioengineering can rise to that challenge. “The technology is developing so fast – I love the observation from Bill Gates that we always overestimate what can happen in the next two years, but underestimate what can happen in the next ten years. Our progress over the past ten years in biological engineering and industrial biotechnology is just stunning. Things that we never considered in the scope of possibility are now everyday applications.” And she added: “For example, we have established a robotic bioengineering facility called BioFoundry, which allows us to make advances in three months that took me ten years manually with a pipette and test tubes.” I can definitely agree to this, considering my work in the blockchain industry!
Yet, there is still an embryonic feel around synbio. And the question remains: can synbio make a difference at scale? Despite all the bright ideas and prototypes, the industry is still chipping away at the edges of global challenges like hunger and climate change. “At scale” means, for example, something that delivers to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals – not just making a few bucks from flavours and fragrances.
There are significant capability hurdles too – for example, there’s currently a massive insufficiency worldwide for fermentation at scale. For the technology to reach its potential, the emergence of manufacturing bio hubs located next to feedstock and renewable energy sources are required. Better still, by making them truly open and democratized, it will accelerate the chances for any industry to test, try, fail and pivot, and potentially create new solutions. And the R&D community needs to be reaching for grand challenges that can have real impact.
It’s time to make a difference at scale. Be it science, technology or the circular economy, when we work in sustainability and tech for good applications, this is how we leave our mark on humanity. Mother Nature is watching.
Everledger CEO Leanne Kemp talks to CSIRO’s Professor Claudia Vickers to explore the vast possibilities for synbio in meeting the urgent need for the circular economy.
Honeybee silk, produced via a synbio process at CSIRO that allows industrial-volume silk production … [+]at room temperature using sustainable resources.
CSIRO
Climate change is fast becoming the mother of invention. Around the world, we’re seeing an explosion of eco-centric start-ups and tech-for-good founders who recognize the worth – both environmentally and financially – in pursuing new solutions that will help decarbonize the planet and accelerate progress towards net zero emissions. The World Economic Forum (WEF) has released the Great Reset initiative, which aims to urgently rebuild the foundations of our economic and social system for a more fair, sustainable, and resilient future. And the WEF is calling for greater support and prominence for social entrepreneurs.
Synthetic biology (synbio) has emerged as a rapid growth industry, with the global value of synbio technologies and products projected to reach almost $20 billion by 2024. Hundreds of startups are setting up, especially in the Bay Area, the UK, and in Australia, while R&D institutions are winning public funds to expand and upgrade their laboratories. CSIRO estimates that by 2040 this industry might revolve around USD$2-4 Trillion dollars in direct economic impact. The areas with the most potential include human health, agriculture, consumer goods and materials.
In simple terms, synbio is about designing useful things from the building blocks of life, using DNA as the code. You take a plentiful biological feedstock – such as table sugar from sugar cane – and then convert it through fermentation into something that’s hundreds or even thousands of times more valuable. Think green plastics or petroleum substitutes, even building materials.
Last week I had a conversation with Professor Claudia Vickers, Director of the Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia’s national science agency. She commented: “Synbio is similar to making beer or wine, in that it uses microorganisms such as yeast. We want to make natural biochemicals that have industrial applications, but aren’t available in nature at levels that are economically viable. They might be pharmaceuticals, which are high value and can be produced economically at relatively low volumes, or things like food and feed ingredients which are lower value and need to be produced at medium to high levels to be economically viable.”
MORE FOR YOU
Perhaps the most topical examples of synthetic biology are the mRNA coronavirus vaccines – a novel technology developed, tested, and delivered within 12 months of the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Alternative proteins are also an exciting area, given the high carbon footprint of meat production. For instance, the Impossible Burger in San Francisco has created headlines for using a plant protein called leghaemaglobin that gives the same sizzle and texture of a beef patty on the grill. And the Australian company Nourish Ingredients makes fats and oils that make plant-based proteins taste more like the animal alternatives, but keeps the product animal-free.
Synbio can also be used to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Another compound, produced from red seaweed, not only causes a cow to produce less methane, but also provides a more natural way of promoting weight gain. Meanwhile in fashion, Bolt Threads’ spider silk will appear in Stella McCartney’s fabrics, and Spiber has partnered with North Face in Japan.
Biological revolution
CSIRO BioFoundry – from L to R: Dr Janet Reid, Mr Huw Hayman Zumpe, Professor Claudia Vickers
CSIRO
But can synbio deliver solutions at scale? Claudia certainly thinks so. “We live in incredible times,” she said. “The pandemic has highlighted to humanity the power and danger of biology, while underlining the amazing ability we now have to engineer solutions to biological threats. It’s the age of the biological revolution. Advances in the reading and the writing of DNA are now progressing at a much faster rate than the IT revolution, according to Moore’s Law, where the number of transistors on a microchip doubles every two years, though the cost of computers is halved.”
Language such as ‘biology manipulation’ inevitably sparks conversations about Frankenstein foods and playing with nature. However, Claudia was quick to point out that this technology doesn’t exist in a vacuum. “We know that genetic modification is controversial and we acknowledge our responsibility to conduct research ethically and within regulations. We also know that many people are curious, hopeful and excited about how the emerging field of synthetic biology could address environmental, health and agricultural problems.”
On behalf of the WEF’s Future Science Council on Synthetic Biology, she is working with colleagues to draw up the values to guide development and broaden the geographical innovation that feeds into synthetic biology globally. Equity, sustainability, solidarity and humility are the four key themes for helping to expose systemic challenges and opportunities.
Full circle: tracking provenance
DNA is effectively a simple code. Similar to digital data, it can be tagged with signatures and markers. Claudia has spotted the possible crossover with other technologies: “Synbio brings together many different disciplines, including computer and social sciences. I can see a natural fit with, say, blockchain as a mechanism to identify and track provenance. Blockchain could help provide transparency and traceability to bioengineering.”
This is where a lot of her research converges with the work of blockchain-powered traceability solutions, such as those adopted by companies as far apart as apparel from fashion houses and electric vehicle manufacturers tracking their end-of-life batteries.
The WEF is also exploring these possibilities on behalf of their business and government partners. As Claudia points out: “In fact, molecular provenance plays into the values for the WEF, as equity demands that we understand the origin of every strand of biological code – and that any value and benefits are returned to the communities from whence that DNA or piece of biological material came from. Stakeholder capitalism – where sustainability considerations are driving purchasing decisions – is becoming a much more significant part of the economic ecosystem. Blockchain can help in tracing the circular journey of biomaterials.”
Claudia and I believe that to get to a sustainable economy, we need to install a dramatically different economic system. That means shifting from a single-use petrochemical economy to a circular, bio-based economy. In cities, something like 40 or even 50% of food doesn’t even reach our plates. Claudia points out that synbio offers the potential for society to recycle carbon and energy through fermentation in a local bio-based system. Likewise, think of the tonnage of fibres and fabrics, which are tossed into landfill every day. These could be broken down into fermentable carbon sources, which would contribute to the circular economy as well.
“Our ability right now to engineer biology has never been more important,” said Claudia. “We could live sustainably as a species, but all indications suggest that in developed economies, people are not prepared to make those life choices. Instead, we are gambling that scientists and engineers will come up with technologies to deal with the situation. From where I’m sitting, biology is really the only technology that can deliver sustainable solutions.”
Next steps
We are both optimistic that bioengineering can rise to that challenge. “The technology is developing so fast – I love the observation from Bill Gates that we always overestimate what can happen in the next two years, but underestimate what can happen in the next ten years. Our progress over the past ten years in biological engineering and industrial biotechnology is just stunning. Things that we never considered in the scope of possibility are now everyday applications.” And she added: “For example, we have established a robotic bioengineering facility called BioFoundry, which allows us to make advances in three months that took me ten years manually with a pipette and test tubes.” I can definitely agree to this, considering my work in the blockchain industry!
Yet, there is still an embryonic feel around synbio. And the question remains: can synbio make a difference at scale? Despite all the bright ideas and prototypes, the industry is still chipping away at the edges of global challenges like hunger and climate change. “At scale” means, for example, something that delivers to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals – not just making a few bucks from flavours and fragrances.
There are significant capability hurdles too – for example, there’s currently a massive insufficiency worldwide for fermentation at scale. For the technology to reach its potential, the emergence of manufacturing bio hubs located next to feedstock and renewable energy sources are required. Better still, by making them truly open and democratized, it will accelerate the chances for any industry to test, try, fail and pivot, and potentially create new solutions. And the R&D community needs to be reaching for grand challenges that can have real impact.
It’s time to make a difference at scale. Be it science, technology or the circular economy, when we work in sustainability and tech for good applications, this is how we leave our mark on humanity. Mother Nature is watching.
The properties inherent to Bitcoin are deterministic, not probabilistic, and rely on the natural laws which make up our world.
Everything in the (observable) universe is ultimately governed by the laws of physics. This includes everything from observable phenomena at the cellular and molecular level to what we can observe in the most distant of galaxies. At its most simplistic level, this centers around energy and energy as a state of matter, something that cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred between entities (first law of thermodynamics).
One of the least thought of ways that energy is present in our world today, until the advent of proof-of-work in Bitcoin, is how the concept of energy applies to money. Despite this, monetary energy is arguably the single most important practical implementation of energy transfer in the world today because it’s the signal of all of the work that people individually and collectively output transferred from our physical selves into the world. As a practical example — to build a bridge, it takes work from the people that are building that bridge, as they are transferring energy in the form of physical labor to build that bridge and are expecting energy in return in the form of getting paid.
The distinct problem that we have today is that the monetary energy in the world is fundamentally distorted to the point where the signal is completely broken. Central banks have routinely bailed out Cantillon insiders and distorted the real cost of capital through interest rate manipulation. This has caused all understanding of monetary value to be lost. Monetary energy can only function optimally in a totally free, uninhibited market. The further distorted the markets become, the less “real” signal the monetary energy produces, and therefore real productivity becomes more distorted from that signal.
Practically what this means is that monetary energy can no longer be transferred across time in a reliable manner. Salability of energy is a key factor in not distorting the monetary energy because I need to know that my purchasing power is going to be worth relatively the same today as it will tomorrow. Otherwise, it will naturally force me up the risk curve to try to preserve my monetary energy.
How do these ideas circle back to physics? As mentioned above, One of the key concepts of physics is thermodynamics. The third law of thermodynamics states that a system’s entropy naturally approaches a constant value as it approaches absolute zero, that is, the lowest limit of the thermodynamic scale. Randomness in systems tends toward the thing that can create order out of disorder. For monetary energy, this would mean seeking the highest signal out of the noise.
Bitcoin combines the first and third law of thermodynamics. It is an entirely emergent system borne out of maximum disorder. This isn’t just theoretically true, it’s practically true, as evidenced by the state of the fiat world.
Ultimately, Bitcoin will absorb the majority of the store of value energy on the planet because it has the hardest monetary properties. Salability, fungibility, censorship resistance, and proof-of -work. Proof-of-work being the most important of these, because it satisfies the first law of thermodynamics, and therefore guarantees that the third law of thermodynamics brings the majority of the monetary energy existent into the network.
Bitcoin isn’t a perfect monetary system. It’s simply the best monetary system the world has ever seen. This is why, on a long enough time scale, the majority of the world’s monetary energy will be stored on the Bitcoin network. It’s simply the natural laws of the universe that make this inevitable.
The short-term exchange rate will fluctuate, often dramatically, as the world assigns various probabilities to the ultimate accrual of monetary energy by the hardest monetary network ever created. But Bitcoin doesn’t work based on a probabilistic function, it works based on a deterministic one. The short-term exchange rate represents the discounting that the world’s population is collectively placing on the laws of thermodynamics playing out. However, anyone that understands these fundamental truths knows that the conclusion is built into the protocol and the emergent systems that develop around the protocol.
While HODLers wait on the world to get caught up, they can rest easy knowing that Bitcoin succeeding isn’t a human question, it’s a question of energy transfer of entropy. And the laws that we know emerge from those guarantee its ultimate success.
This is a guest post by Mind/Matter. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.
We got to catch up with the CSO and Co-Founder of Unchained Capital in this pre-conference interview!
At Bitcoin 2021, you’ll be able to experience a variety of speakers with many different backgrounds. One amazing guest we will be privileged to host is Dhruv Bansal, Co-Founder and CSO at Unchained Capital, and author of the “Bitcoin Astronomy” series discussing the implications of bitcoin and blockchain technology being used in space. He will be presenting “The Bitcoin Stack,” alongside Ryan Gentry June 4, 11:15 am EST on the Stacking Sats stage.
Set a reminder for Bitcoin 2021 Day 1 YouTube Live Stream →
Being a personal fan of Mr. Bansal and his work, I was elated to get the opportunity to interview him via email, along with planning for an in-person interview at the conference. Below is our interview discussing his own Bitcoin journey, what he’s looking forward to in the industry, and some questions particular to his work in science.
How would you describe your bitcoin journey in terms of how it changed your life?
My background is statistical physics and distributed systems engineering. It was the connections between bitcoin and these areas which first drew me into the bitcoin “rabbit hole”. But understanding bitcoin requires understanding so much more than physics and engineering. I’ve really enjoyed learning more about money, economics, finance, and politics on my bitcoin journey, as well as meeting the people who taught me these things. Bitcoin is a passion and a career for me now, a focal point of so many old and new interests.
What are you most excited about for the rest of the year in bitcoin?
I’m excited for all the growth we’re experiencing, both at my company, Unchained Capital, and in bitcoin as a whole. As the value of their bitcoin increases, hodlers’ minds turn to better custody. I believe that key ownership is a vital part of bitcoin ownership so I’m excited for the increased interest in multisig collaborative custody.
Your essays on the ramifications of space exploration on bitcoin and hash rate are phenomenal – what’s your experience been in terms of reaction from the traditional academic community?
Not much! What I most enjoyed about writing my “Bitcoin Astronomy” series was its highly speculative nature. I’m no longer an academic and I have no scientific reputation to defend so I’m free to look foolish making such speculations. I think the traditional academic community is rightly more conservative about speculation. My sense is that many academics — certainly most physicists, astronomers, astrobiologists, and SETI researchers — are still somewhat suspicious of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
Do you expect an increasing amount of connections to be drawn between hard sciences and the application of bitcoin?
Following on the last question, as the general public becomes more familiar with and accepting of bitcoin I believe the attention paid by the scientific community to bitcoin will also increase. Computer scientists, cryptographers, physicists, as well as practitioners from many other fields are already producing some research on bitcoin’s virtual machine, architecture, network, etc. As bitcoin grows I expect an acceleration in science’s learnings about bitcoin. But I’m especially excited to see what learnings scientists make about their own fields inspired by bitcoin!
What are your goals for 2021, and how are you working towards them?
My biggest 2021 goal is to ensure my company, Unchained Capital, continues to scale with the demand we’re seeing in this bull market. We’re hiring engineers, upgrading systems, automating workflows, all while building new products and services. It’s a wonderful problem to have. I would also like to ship some essays and other content on scaling bitcoin through layers — the topic of the talk I’m giving at Bitcoin2021 with Ryan Gentry from Lightning Labs — as well as my own thoughts on connections between bitcoin and the hard sciences.
To hear more about the conference, follow both #Bitcoin2021 and Bitcoin Magazine on Twitter and Instagram, plus join our conversation on Telegram. And be sure to subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with all the happenings at Bitcoin 2021.
When Buckminster Fuller was asked by a 12-year-old boy how he would suggest solving international problems without violence, he answered:
“I always try to solve problems by some artifact, some toolor invention that makes what people are doing obsolete, sothat it makes this particular kind of problem no longerrelevant. My answer would be to develop a world energygrid, an electric grid where everybody is on the same grid.All of a sudden, there would be no problems anymore, nointernational troubles. Our new economic basis wouldn’t begold or dollars; it would be kilowatt hours.”
The above quote from the prescient Buckminster Fuller in 1983 was in reference to his now famous prognostication of the “Kilowatt dollar”, something he first discussed as far back as 1969 (three years before Nixon took us off the gold standard). While Mr. Fuller was referring to a theoretical energy-based unit of money, what he could not have realized at the time is that he was really talking about bitcoin.
Money: Our Most Fundamental Unit Of Social Information Technology
● In a free market society, the greatest network of information by far is price, which itself is, at its core, an intersubjective agreement of value. Money is the abstraction of that value.
● The “Schelling point” for participants in a society is whichever money exists that can best transmit that price information. This is where money “wants” to go.
● Money is, therefore, the facilitator of our communication and distribution of all economic resources. All innovation and societal progress flows from this communication. It is perhaps the most elementary and consequential social tool we have and has been essential to our species’ ability to successfully scale (i.e., dominate and hyper-exponentially populate the Earth).
● This principle of money, while simultaneously vague and grandiose, is perhaps so because it is taken for granted, abstracted away and obfuscated by technocrats, economists and politicians alike who are currently co-piloting our existing monetary system.
● Importantly, money is also the means to transfer uncertainty and risk to those willing to bear that uncertainty. This is one of the key manners in which money acts as information (beyond price itself), as monetary transfer of risk and uncertainty unveils invaluable morsels of information by way of successes and failures. It builds anti-fragility in the system with these increments of volatility throughout time. Without money, there would be no measure of volatility. No means to evaluate success or failure and no motivation for such risk-transferring behavior.
● More specifically, a medium of risk transmission is necessary for the accumulation of productive capital. Risk-takers and those with the appropriate skills to build new
productive capital are not always the same people. Those who already have accumulated wealth are not always those most fit to build new capital stock. Thus, a marketplace is needed to allow the swapping of risk in order to build the capital stock. Money is the medium for such transactions.
With these fundamental and philosophical logos as our background state, let us now explore how money as information technology is key to our grokking of money’s entanglement, with the harnessing of energy as a means to advance civilization. Not only does such an exploration help us to establish just how detrimental fiat forms of money are to the process of energy phase transitions, but it helps us realize just how invaluable bitcoin is as a means to extricate ourselves from the socioeconomic dilemma we currently face.
Above: The Kardashev Scale- A theory originating from Russian astrophysicist Nicolai Kardashev that touches upon the themes of this article, namely the relationship between technology and energy. The theory posits that to know a civilization’s capacity to advance, one must know the available energy it can harness. Unfortunately, Earth currently is defined as Type 0, unable to yet harness all the energy available on our planet, and not even on the above evolutionary map.
Image source
Energy, Monetary Entropy and Information Parity
For the purposes of the below discussion, let us define entropy in its simplest manner. High entropy is a state of high disorder, whereas low entropy is a state of high order.
An Entropy Equilibrium Hypothesis:
Thermodynamic entropy (TE) increases are always balanced by a commensurate decrease in information entropy (IE), so that:
TE = – IE
where a positive value indicates an increase in entropy and a negative value indicates a decrease in entropy.
This hypothesis is essentially an adaptation of the second law of thermodynamics, combining it with concepts from information theory, and using these observations to create a formula that is more comprehensively applicable to human economic activities. It is a restatement of this law so as to better understand the relationship between energy, money and information. It is simple and symmetrical.
The Power Of X
X ^ = technological innovation’s exponential order of scaling.
○ Human productivity involves taking our temporary and low entropy states — elegant organizations of double-helixed, organic and carbon-based existence — and transforming these arrangements into higher entropy states as we consume other low entropy energy matter to then produce higher entropy energy in the form of work.
○ Technological innovation enables us to do this work easier, faster, better and more abundantly with the same quantity of resources. This is also called productivity.
According to the renowned information theory of Claude Shannon:
In short,
Information = Reduced Entropy
Technology, in turn, is what allows information to scale.
Let us further unpack this concept of information, at least in the context of this article, as unstructured data manipulated into a structured and intentionally ordered format that reduces uncertainty.
Just as the first law of thermodynamics teaches us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, likewise, the second law of thermodynamics states that thermodynamic entropy always increases over time. However, this law says nothing of entropy inherent to information or specific human systems such as market economies. Consequently, the second law of thermodynamics says nothing of the impact of human technological ingenuity on other forms of entropy, particularly related to information.
Given all this analysis, we can refine the above formula further as:
TEX = -IE
However, this equation, spartan as it is, is not complete, at least when applied to human social and economic systems. As previously discussed, given that money is perhaps the basest unit of information technology for social scaling, we must incorporate it into this formula, along with the general exponential order of technological scaling, so that:
(X-ME) ^
Whereby, ME= Monetary Entropy
We will define monetary entropy as the long-term inflation rate of that money. In truth, monetary entropy is influenced by much more than monetary inflation alone (discussed further below), but for the sake of parsimony, let us be content with this lean definition for the moment.
We can now write the hypothesis more comprehensively as:
The crucial realization as it concerns the important paradigm shift inherent to bitcoin is as follows: Fiat money involves a net increase in entropy.
This cannot be overstated and is imperative to this article’s thesis. Such a conclusion is reached despite money theoretically being a form of information that should reduce entropy when applied as intended. However, fiat, unfortunately, is not money as money was intended. Inflation, centralized and thus arbitrary control of the rules of supply (and attempts at also controlling demand via administered risk-free rates), global exchange rate volatility and competitive devaluations and mercantilism, subsidies, free debt-supporting zombie industries, opaque and uneven taxation enforcement, and many other behaviors, all conspire to create an aggregate equation of massive entropy in fiat money economies.
When money is denominated in fiat, ME is always > 0 (and is often well above this threshold, especially in the fullness of time).
When money is denominated in bitcoin, ME always = 0, period. No asterisks, no footnotes.
Another important observation teased out by the above formula is that as TE(X-ME) increases, a system’s inputs (energy resources) exhibit greater scarcity.
Kyle Baranko writes,
If money is not permitted its intrinsic capacity to absorb this scarcity, other resources will need to fill that void. This increases the cost of information production because there are fewer and fewer sources of increasing thermodynamic entropy from which to convert into decreasing informational entropy. Consequently, the system will experience a drag on productivity. Such an environment also manifests hidden costs like environmental externalities and systemic fragility which are easily cemented into chronic problems that become difficult to fix.
If an increase in TE^(X-ME) leads to greater thermodynamic or monetary scarcity, this implies that the equivalent decline in IE leads to a greater supply of structured, ordered information (decreasing informational entropy). Basic laws of supply and demand conclude this will tend to reduce the cost of information proportionally.
If, in the form of bitcoin, money is allowed to absorb thermodynamic entropy, money will accrue the incremental scarcity from increases in thermodynamic entropy values. This is how we arrive at another “mathematical” phenomenon, stated as NgU, or more colloquially known as “number go up.” Growth does NOT need to = gross domestic product (GDP); GDP growth = more consumption.
The largest contributing factor to GDP is consumption, and this has been growing materially as a percentage of GDP ever since the financialization of our economy via exponential growth in money and debt since the 1971 unraveling of Bretton Woods, the subsequent formation of the fiat standard and the USD petrodollar global reserve system. This trend only gets amplified further after each debt shock, forcing more and more consumption and leveraging to extricate ourselves from the newly indebted state we create with each cycle. This is clearly evidenced in the below chart, both at the starting point in the early 1970s, since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) and more recently the COVID-19 pandemic.
Consumption in nominal U.S. dollars as a percentage of U.S. GDP.
Bloomberg Data
This is a recipe for disaster. It is definitionally unsustainable to grow in perpetuity by this measure given 1) limited thermodynamic resources and, more importantly perhaps, 2) the inefficient use and squandering of these very resources. This squandering is effectuated by inflationary monetary policies that do not allow the economy to transition naturally into a lower consumption society resulting from reduced informational entropy and the abundance this could create if we allow it. A sustainable path requires a redefinition of growth away from concepts requiring increased consumption (quantity of goods and services produced, wage growth, time worked, asset inflation/wealth effects, etc.), allowing the evolution of energy, information and money to virtuously improve our prosperity.
Growth = informational entropy = more time, lower time preference.
The above equation helps us visualize a framework for such a dynamic and demonstrates how bitcoin, as a base layer with a zero monetary entropy, can help propel us into this future.
Money does not = value.
Instead, it is a measure of value created in an economy. Good money, therefore, is information. It informs us of our progress. Bad money blinds us, causing us to veer off onto spindly and corroded dirt roads.
Inflation does not = the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Inflation is not the cost of gas prices. It is not lumber prices going up. It is not the price of a Big Mac or your electricity bill. It is not even your house’s value appreciating.
The most encompassing definition for inflation is more fundamentally the depreciation of money versus the value otherwise created.
Inflationary monetary systems obfuscate the value created by societal productivity. This simple statement can not be overstated. Since the early decades of the 20th century, we have errantly accepted inflation as a first principle necessity in all free markets. But it is not the natural economic state, and in a broader historical context, it is actually a fairly recent experiment (see Gibson’s Paradox). Quite the opposite is true in terms of the natural state of human progress and free market capitalism. Once this problem is truly appreciated, the value of an absolute scarcity that is verifiable, immutable and censorship resilient across time and space, as well as stateless (belonging to the free market), we suddenly realize just how incredible an invention this truly is. That is the rabbit hole that is bitcoin. The notion is subtle, but once understood, the gravitational desire to dive headfirst down this rabbit hole of myriad societal revolutions becomes an inescapable journey.
Bitcoin = A Mirror
A deflationary monetary system of absolute hard money acts as a mirror for value creation. It is a compass to guide us toward a better economic path. Value is created through human ingenuity, environmental necessity and the compounding productivity driven by our accumulation of collective knowledge. These forces are often labeled generically as technology or innovation, and they always create value decreasing informational entropy. Said differently, all productivity is driven by technology and all technological innovation is deflationary at a fundamental level. That is, as long as money remains a constant in the equation.
If, however, money is inflating, we lose our measure of value. It would be like using the proverbial yardstick that constantly redefines what a yard is: A table is two yards; but then a yardstick creates more units and suddenly that table is four yards. The table did not grow. The measurement unit shrank. A store of value is just as it sounds. It stores all the productivity and work created. If more value is created than a sound money, then that money by definition has more purchasing power and stores greater and greater value. If instead value is being destroyed by money supply abuse, then people will without fail seek to store their value elsewhere. Money must always, therefore, start as a store of value before it becomes a medium of exchange. Deflation is a measure of success in creating economic value as innovation creates more for less. If prices decrease by 5% per year, that is a much greater expression of value creation than our current measures that are perversely inverted, such as “real GDP.” If you print dollars and then count the value created in those very dollars, what does that actually tell you? What if you could instead calculate the amount of goods and services created versus the dollars created. Would that not tell us more?
Conclusion
We live in a time of incredible technological advancements on increasingly exponential growth curves. This is taking information production to an unseen scale of abundance, but such abundance is diluted and often fully negated by fiat’s perversion of money’s potential to synergistically accommodate such plentitude.
If technological productivity has the potential to decrease informational entropy output for each thermodynamic unit of increased entropy input, this is the true definition of wealth creation and prosperity. More for less. Fiat not only robs us of this wealth, but it adds to the entropic dissipation polluting our ecosystem and making it ever more fragile. Yes, “ecosystem.” A word most often associated with environmental dialogues is not coincidentally built from the word “economy” itself (with its etymological roots in the Greek words for “distribution of the home”), as thermodynamic systems are inextricably linked to systems of human productivity (information).
Concluding with the trite axiom, “bitcoin fixes this,” does not even begin to do the solution that is bitcoin the justice it deserves. Bitcoin addresses this problem like Cinderella’s slipper. It is a perfect fit or a perfect solution in this case. Not only does the Bitcoin network inherently take highly disordered information and asymmetrically (through cryptography) make this information incredibly ordered, as eloquently stated by Bitcoiner Gigi in his article Bitcoin’s Eternal Struggle, but bitcoin (the money) with its properties of absolute scarcity, decentralized consensus, immutably programmed supply, rule-based and anti-fragile incentive structure, changes the game entirely. Each of these properties on their own would change the game, as they’re each intensely conducive to decreased informational entropy, especially when compared to fiat. But when combined, the synergistic reduction in entropy is perhaps even more exponential than the Cambrian explosion of information that is being produced by today’s technological abundance.
It will be a great day, perhaps a great filter of sorts, when the ships of money and other technology can sail along the same current.
This is a guest post by Aaron Segal. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC, Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.