Justin, I appreciate you taking the time to post these questions on this venue, since it keeps the conversation accessible to everyone that had the opportunity to see the video. Let me *try* and answer each of these questions in turn: 1. Hedera Hashgraph (HBAR) claims to be a DLT technology that uses asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerance (aBFT) to achieve consensus / finality of the underlying ledger entries. This is how it avoids the double-spend problem. Here's a good hyperlink to the technical claims: https://help.hedera.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000674097 The inventor of this consensus system has been on Real Vision a few times, it might be beneficial viewers to watch the evolution of this ecosystem over the course of time. Here are the links: March 2019 - https://www.realvision.com/shows/the-creators-of-crypto/videos/hashgraph-the-blockchain-killer Feb. 2020 - https://www.realvision.com/shows/discoveries/videos/the-blockchain-killer-an-introduction-to-hashgraph I personally believe the technology shows great promise, especially as a Layer 1 solution with high transactional throughput capabilities. Unfortunately, performance is only one metric of many that gives an ecosystem value (security premiums, governance, liquidity, etc.). The burden is therefore on the developers to demonstrate they can manage all the aforementioned properties while delivering on the promise of aBFT. If they can do that they will be well positioned to interoperate with other liquidity pools on the Internet of Value. 2. To be specific LINK is the native token of the Chainlink oracle system and I believe it, or some variation thereof, to be an essential project for the space. Although Chainlink has a native token (which was originally ERC20 Ethereum based) it in of itself is not intended to be a P2P value layer. The native token is an incentive system designed to fund and maintain secure and reliable data streams. That means at the end of the day, it's an information layer supporting a value layer with pedigree information. What most people don't realize is that blockchains are self-contained monetary universes and don't communicate with the outside world. If you are to properly leverage the power of smart contracts you need "oracles" to provide information triggers for the intended contractual outcomes to be initiated. For example, you may have a derivatives contract on Ethereum that depends on both the weather & the outcome of a sports contract. Both conditions need to be fed to the smart contract, the outcomes of which are not known before hand. When the outcome is known how do you supply the data in a reliable, secure way to the smart contract so that value can flow fairly. This is the main challenge of Oracles and an essential element of the Internet of Value. Without it these universes are simply an exercise in speculation since their relation to the real world is highly limited to the environment variables of the respective ecosystem. The best description of the technical functions of Chainlink can be found in the documentation: https://docs.chain.link/docs/what-is-chainlink. People can find out more about Chainlink here: https://chain.link/ and an article debriefing here: https://cryptobriefing.com/what-is-chainlink-link-token/ 3. The centralization of the Bitcoin needs to be discussed and addressed before we approach mass adoption, if not we temp fate and the rate of change of the movement. If the main claim to the chain is the SoV narrative, it must do so by precluding a double-spend at all costs. There are several mechanisms at play that change the incentive structures for Proof-of-Work (PoW) miners that have the potential of compromising this narrative. These need to be taken seriously. The best arguments of this "Security Dilemma" are presented in this video: https://youtu.be/zPYkL6L3VGw As with all things, investors and participants need to focus on what they know best, the pros/cons, potential upsides as they related to risk. I think that line of thinking applies to all of the above. I hope this answers your questions!

@Stantiago: I agree that we definitely need to be wary of Bitcoin's security model and how it behaves when the block subsidy goes away (or becomes irrelevant in terms of total block reward). It's a risk factor for sure. However, I assume that you're suggesting that a PoS system would be the alternative? In my opinion, it's very important to know what the input to the security is. In a PoW system the input is *always* spent electricity. No matter who you are, where you are or what your motives are you always need to spend money on electricity (continuously) to participate in the system. In a PoS system however it's impossible to know *how* you got hold of your staking coins. You could have stolen them, bought them from someone or had them given to you. To me it just feels like a PoS system is much more easily manipulated as the input cost of getting control of the system is unknown and once you *have* your staking coins it's extremely cheap to exercise your voting power (there's no mining).

Thanks Jason!

I'm presently working with a colleague on this very topic. More specifically, we are studying the intersection of Liquid Democracy + Tokenization + DLT and what that means for governance, both at the individual ecosystem level and more broadly for sovereign governments. We hope to examine issues around social networks, influencers, and political capital. What happens when you have an Internet of Value that allows interoperability between these ecosystems / structures and monetization, incentive systems, reputation scores, expertise, etc. It's a very exciting space. I anticipate a radical departure from our current forms of parliamentary & representative democracies without the bureaucratic devolvements common to technocracies. We will release this article on Medium. You can find out more about Liquid Democracy here: Ref. 1: https://medium.com/organizer-sandbox/liquid-democracy-true-democracy-for-the-21st-century-7c66f5e53b6f Ref. 2: https://medium.com/@memetic007/liquid-democracy-9cf7a4cb7f

Damn Alex, that's a sweet endorsement. Much appreciated.

Thanks Joel, that's how I feel about the whole space!

Thank you R W!

Uniswap is a liquidity provisioning tool for tokens within the Ethereum ecosystem, therefore it presumes everyone will choose to use Ethereum as the Layer 1 blockchain (which is not realistic from a transactional standpoint nor from a counterparty platform). Interoperability protocols need to support cross-chain and cross-network value facilitation (think Ethereum to PayPal to Bitcoin to CBDCs, etc.). That's a very different proposition, although no more or less important, than Uniswap. All of the above need to happen. For readers here is a good reference to Uniswap: https://uniswap.org/

What I meant is uniswap allows for erc20 to erc20 swap by using Ethereum as common denominator. Yes, I have read the uniswap whitepaper and the contract model. We have erc20 token listed there :) For inter-blockchain operability, Polkadot is working hard on that problem. https://polkadot.network/

Polkadot is one of my favorite projects!

I disagree. I think Raoul brings great questions and perspective. I was thinking that before I read this comment. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all, seriously. Just watch a different channel.

For the record I take no offense to this comment, it's all good! I'll be honest, in my mind I live in the future, maybe it's a type of escapism, so it tends to bleed out in conversation. That being said, it's important to provide a vision of what's possible for investors to start thinking about how to position themselves to capitalize on these emerging technologies. "Hopium" is a curse which is why I prefer to focus on "how" the technology could be leveraged and "why" it's so important to do so (cultural & societal impact). This is normal for all technology adoption curves if you look back at the dot.com bubble for example, it's simply impossible to reign in the animal spirits of speculators, and that is regrettable. I would love to talk with Andreas because I follow him religiously online even if I don't agree with him on everything I don't think there is as much daylight as you might think. Is this something you could arrange? To your point about RV monetizing these conversations, I receive no compensation for it but I do receive exposure and value, for both myself personally and the prospects of being seen as legitimate in the future for my businesses. I am deeply appreciative of the opportunities. Thank you for your comment Nic!

And it’s fine that you disagree. As for only wanting me to write nice things, who does that serve? I’m am expressing my opinion, and what I said is ultimately intended to be for the benefit of potential investors. I have a strong opinion that RV’s crypto coverage is not up to scratch, and I’m expressing that - where’s the problem? And we now have interviews like this where pretty much everything SV was saying, he has generously shared for free and Twitter. I don’t think that warrants it being put behind a paywall. Downvote me again, that’s what the buttons are there for. Seems there are others who don’t agree with my comment either, which is fine. Disagreement is healthy.

I think you were replying to Ash, not me based on your comment context. I think healthy, respectful disagreement and skepticism is more important than anything else. I'm a believer in the scientific process, and with it rigor and burden. Raoul has asked me if I would be interested in being an interviewer, which I accepted! I can assure you that my goal would be to be unapologetic, without being adversarial, in testing the claims made by guests introducing crypto related concepts / products. I'll do my best when given the opportunity because I always do my homework.

@ SV, yes I was replying to Ash as you were replying. I just tried to clarify that but it was rejected, probably as you were replying again! I think you being an interviewer here for crypto, and perhaps other content is a fantastic idea, and exactly the kind of one that my initial comment was meant to spur. Perhaps I was a bit fast and loose with my analogies, but that was semi-intentional for effect, and kudos to Raoul for taking on board what others have also said regarding the need for people of your level being required in order to ask the tough questions in crypto related interviews I read your 'thesis' on twitter and thought it was extremely interesting. Thank you for sharing it there. I agree that there might not be that much daylight between your vision and that of Andreas, but it would make for an incredible 'fireside chat' in my opinion. I was going to suggest that perhaps Nathaniel Whittlemore (@nlw), host of The Breakdown podcast may be able to set it up (I dont have the necessary contacts), but if you are going to be interviewing here then that would be great too. I would be surprised if he was not open to it - you are both brilliant crypto thinkers and visionaries. I think your idea re 'fractional content' is correct and is the way we are going. To be honest I think that it would have been a better route for RV to have followed than tiers and paywalls, which is a backwards step in my opinion. It would already be technically pretty easy to implement a 'credits based' system for videos, not even too hard to do it for partial videos if not too granular, and it does not even require crypto. To take it a bit further though, in the future RV could do an ICO with RV coins which could be used to pay per minute viewing, with RV coins traded on an exchanges. The problem is see currently is that this would likely be a very illiquid pair, and as such very easy to manipulate the price of. And I think that this is the weakest link in your vision (for now) - until we have deep markets in all these products, trading eggs for goats in Sudan using an invisible network of blockchains in the background is likely to result in a bad deal for one party ie the market would not be efficient. And we still have to solve that eternal crypto trilemma of decentralisation vs security vs scalability. The scaling required to reach your vision is probably the biggest hurdle, without centralising everything. Anyway, as you said we are in the 'build stage' and solutions may or may not present themselves in the future - exciting times Thanks again, you are one smart cookie!, and yes, I know you were not paid for the interview, and did not mean to imply that ;)

Actually Santiago, I will go further, and say that I see *absolutely no reason* why you should not have been paid for this interview, as we are being charged to watch it. I think this probably dovetails with your vision of value exchange in the future, no? In this exchange there are 3 parties, RV, you and the viewer. RV has added value by bringing you to the attention of people who are not already aware of you, you bring enormous value with your vision, and we pay to listen. As you said in your comment, you have received value through exposure, but I have no doubt that in the future your name will be widely known and the compensation will come in a more direct form. And thank you for taking so much time to replying to people in the comments here - I can barely keep up, and am learning a lot from your interaction with viewers.

Nic, I respect your viewpoint on perhaps Raoul not having the Crypto gravitas to conduct this interview to your (and others such as yourself who are at a much deeper level of Crypto understanding) satisfaction. That said, I think there is great value in having Raoul conduct the interview because he is most familiar with the RV audience ethos and what we have been exposed to over the hundreds of interviews presented during the last four years. I think he subconsciously tried to ask the questions which we neophytes might wish to have asked...perhaps these questions were “dumbed down” from those that you and your more accomplished Crypto thinkers might have wished....but, one of the purposes of RV is for us to learn and be exposed, in perhaps a more rudimentary way, to a plethora of different Macro and Finance subjects. Many of us have only recently scratched the surface of the Crypto world and candidly this interview, although fantastic, was probably an intellectual “reach” for quite a few of us. Please consider the following; what if the subject matter was not in your wheelhouse of interest, experience and understanding?.....for instance, let’s say Commercial Real Estate or Private Aviation....and let’s say a guest with sophistication in either subject had a new angle of delivering and thinking about the product...let’s say an idea that goes beyond Private jet fractionalization, Jet card and Charter metrics with the current regulatory constraints, taxation and business model formulas where on one level Aviation Lawyers, Insurance Brokers, Aviation Accountants and Aviation lobbyists would want the questions posed in a certain granular manner and the rest of us would rather have the questions posed in a simpler way so that we could get our heads around the Guest’s out of the box thinking about Private Aviation in such a way as to deliver the Private Aviation product such that millions could have access to it at a reasonable cost and competitive with existing Commercial aviation. Nic, there is no perfect answer to the level of questions asked as some viewers want to really drill down and others just want to skim the topic a bit to get more familiar with something they may not know that much about. IMO, Raoul with his understanding and familiarity of everything that has been presented to the RV audience is the perfect interviewer to make the call on the level of discussion..

For me the interaction in this forum has exceeded my expectations and I'm grateful. This is what it's all about for me, engagement, conversation, the sharing of ideas! We are so early to the space. It's like being at the California gold rush but talking about the Interstate Highway system. The bridges, on-ramps, off-ramps, and vehicles are being built. The best part will be the choice that comes with it, the lowering of friction, the freedom to express value!

@ Robert A Likewise, I respect your feedback on my comment and agree with some of it. I would have to have my head i the sand not to see how enormously grateful most of the commenters here are for this video, which has to mean Raoul and team are doing something that is popular, regardless of my own personal biases, which were aimed more towards the overall nature of crypto content and the new Tier structure. As it seems from Santiago's and Raoul's replies that both of these are being addressed, I will wait with interest to see how things evolve ;)

Nic may have seen all this before on Twitter, but most if us on RV are no more clued up than Raoul and want to hear it discussed. By "most of us", I mean to include people who hold BTC and ETH and a bunch of over-hyped altcoins and shitcoins, not the anti-crypto bunch on RV. I agree with Raoul's barrier to consumer first entry observations: it's not easy for new users to join the party. I keep getting offered the next shitcoin by various exchanges, and instead wish they'd just get their fiat bank accounts set up right.

On behalf of the rest of us, thank you for your service! Take your app to the next level and make it interoperable using ILP (Interledger.org).

Also why wouldn't you want everything to converge to Bitcoin if you could, it's basically like going back to a global gold standard. We could still be likely to have multiple coins with different technological trade-offs, but wouldn't you want all on Bitcoin in an ideal world?

Liquid and lightening brings capacity but not smart contracts.

Lightning Network is a Layer 2 payment channel mechanism that has the ability to use Hash Time Locked Contracts (HTLCs) to facilitate value transfer off chain with some conditional statements. This is not a substitute for a Layer 1 smart contract platform (e.g. Ethereum) because it is disconnected from the incentive layer (compute/security hashing in PoW is applied at Layer 1 not 2, as is the security premium). As a result the LN is a scalability solution with some necessary compromises and presents other types of attack vectors. Here is a beginners guide to the network: https://coincentral.com/lightning-network-beginners-guide/ Vitalik Buterin, the inventor of Ethereum, cannot make any change he wants, for code changes and blockchain consensus he still needs to appeal to the community consensus, and he's done so in the early history of the change when he commanded a disproportionate influence over the network. I believe what you are referring to is the "rollback" events early in the history of Ethereum (for example the Parity attack discussed here: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/a-hacker-stole-31m-of-ether-how-it-happened-and-what-it-means-for-ethereum-9e5dc29e33ce/) and reference to the DAO hack (discussed here: https://medium.com/swlh/the-story-of-the-dao-its-history-and-consequences-71e6a8a551ee). Proof of my statement can be seen in the fork between Ethereum and Ethereum Classic, if Vitalik enjoyed unilateral authority over the Ethereum blockchain, and related software, this fork would not have been possible. With regards to the global gold standard. Why would we want to resort to a base layer of value that is supply limited when the endgame should be to increase the velocity of value (something the Fed has obviously failed to do, stymying GDP growth)? It should be self-evident that the ossification of value is only a hedge against uncertainty, and not a remediation to poor economic performance. This is a useful hedging tool for instruments like gold and Bitcoin, but it's not a foundation for building a global economy, unless you want growth constrained. There is a reason the petro-dollar system was invented, because credit needs from the economy exceeded the issuance ability of the government (as gold was required for each dollar issued). Arguably, the petro-dollar and electro-dollar are more representative of intrinsic value (namely energy) required to facilitate global transactions. Bitcoin is a direct expression of energy consumption, however it has a fiat leakage path in that mining OpEx is paid for in fiat. We therefore need a value layer that is currency agnostic and resistant to value ossification to facilitate global growth in a non-hegemonic, equitable way. That layer is the Internet of Value with protocols like Interledger Protocol, Hyperledger Fabric, etc. None of those interoperability layers preclude using Bitcoin, instead they provide a framework for senders / receivers to transact in the value abstractions of their choosing. Real monetary freedom.

Chris, this is an great share, I'm doing my research on them now. When we talk about distributed computing there are a couple of nuances. Decentralized Computing are Platforms (networks) that connect clients & servers without a centralized counterparty in order to perform a computation. The allocation of resources, both hardware and software, to each individual workstation. In contrast, centralized computing exists when the majority of functions are carried out or obtained from a remote centralized location. Either can theoretically utilize quantum computing.

Super interesting idea!

You will be a country of one. DLS

@David I literally snorted out loud when I read this comment, LOL! The idea Humberto threw out is important because it can frame the conversation and we can start shaping effective policy.

I wish I had a magic wand, someone to reign in these developers that don't follow the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor) principle. If my wife won't accept it as a tool then in my mind it's un-necessarily complicated or the UI off-putting. To be clear, this is not an intellectual measure, this is "I have important things to do with my life than worry about how to create digital wallets on distributed ledgers" and that's how it should be. The challenge with abstraction layers are always security and compromises in functionality. It's an important balance.

ETH is a dead coin walking? Please substantiate your claim with some data, which I and readers would all value, because that's what this is all about, a conversation to discern fact from fiction so that we can make informed decision on what ecosystems to invest in. For the record, I am presently only a minor holder in Ethereum the token, but tangentially I'm involved in a great many projects that are leveraging the ecosystem in anticipation of future expansion. To be 100% honest I'm more partial to XRP as a settlement / payment digital asset because of the performance metrics (I'm sure the next retort will be to call me a banking Ripple shill). I'm glad I received this kind of response from at least one viewer because it means I'm going in the right direction, no one likes group think. Now, with regards to your innate abilities to discern value for others, I think that's the main point of the Internet of Value. We can all list to people like you, people like me, and then pick the value we choose at our own risk. Do you consider that a threat, and if so, why?

@Santiago V. - It is, and I could, but I don't work for free. I've given out information on this platform before, but its become evident to me that the gap in knowledge is so large that they need a subject expert. If you don't realize what kind of problem PoS is, then it suggests to me that you need to to do more research. As for XRP, that centralized token has its own problems, but again I'm not the business of doing mind-dumps for free anymore.

Timothy, I respect that position very much, no one likes to contribute for free. I would argue that it can still be self-serving to your position if you illustrate why other's shouldn't make the mistake of supporting one project or another. Let your arguments stand on their merits. I know Proof of Stake has some serious governance problems, as well as security attack vectors, and I'm by no means taking a position on it one way or another. I would instead defer to saying that it should be tried and those that want to experiment with it should understand the risks properly. You could lend a lot to that conversation. XRP is a centralized token only in that the majority of the original issuance resides with the company Ripple. From a transactional perspective, the code base and validator nodes upon which consensus is obtained to avoid a double-spend is without argument decentralized. Ripple cannot roll back or freeze transactions, but yes, they can act against their own best interest on dump on the holders, indisputable. This brings up a great point. What do we mean when we say decentralized? Do we mean node operators that store the ledger account history? Code base? Developers? Hashing power / validators? etc. There is incredible nuance that needs to be brought to light in all these aspects and there are more productive ways than simply generalizing terminology. I apologize if I keep engaging, I assure you it's not in an antagonizing way.

Timothy, it is a shame if you do have some deep subject expertise here, as the way you have communicated here makes me completely disinterested in hearing anything else you have to say. You come across as arrogant and selfish. Do yourself a favour and re-read your comments in the cold light of day, and get a grip about how valuable you think your comments are.

@Eric F - When people use those terms to describe me, I read further into why. I've been right, about a lot of things. I no longer apologize for it, nor do I smother my speech under layers of pandering emotionalism. So when you say "arrogant" all I can see is "stop being so damn correct it makes me feel inadequate": That's on you, not me. I won't apologize for having taken the time to understand a subject deeply, scoffing at people who don't do their homework, and generally telling a know-nothing muppets to get stuffed if they're spewing nonsense. While everyone was larking about and ignoring the subjects that matter, I was putting in my time. I know it very well. Better than most, and almost well enough to contribute code -- though I don't devote time at that tier of output -- I'm mostly a trader, not a full-time programmer. That level of knowledge was hard-won, and I don't give it out for free. Why else are you here? RV isn't free for that exact same reason. So save the insults, and if you want actual knowledge, RV can bring me on as a consultant. If they don't, that's their lost opportunity, not mine.

@Santiago, I have no issue with you -- I just threw out my contribution into the wind. I still disagree that XRP is decentralized, I recall an analysis I read a while back, but don't have the link on hand. For instance, token distribution and their centralized server structure (they say you can run your own, but alas they promote their servers as the de-facto default) points to the Centralization side of the column. Also, the XRP token is divorced from their banking-tier system that they're continually pushing. This makes me think they're using the token to wring value from uneducated crypto newbies, who don't get the distinction. That kind of behavior rings all kinds of alarm bells for me. Not to mention their year-over-year performance is utterly horrific. Down -56.8% s of this writing.

@Tim, it's all good! Let's address some the latter points with regards to XRP: 1. Validators for arriving at consensus are determined via a UNL (list of trusted parties called Unique Load List). Each validator has the ability to choose their own UNL or those of Ripple (which is the default because of the inception). The current validator balance under the direct purview of Ripple is less than the amount of consensus majority need to rollback / freeze transactions. From a processing standpoint this is by all technical merits a decentralized system. Furthermore, there are many projects running their own UNL with lists that are completely divorced from the Ripple default that can process and settle transactions without double spend. This is because there are domain overlaps that allow this to be possible (thing Venn diagrams). 2. The XRP token is a digital asset of an open permissionless ecosystem. Anyone is free to do with XRP as they wish, the problem is how do you acquire them? Since the entire issuance occurred at genesis there is no way to compete for them with compute (like with PoW mining) so you are forced to either generate a digital asset with compute and then swap on a exchange OR use your hard earned fiat to buy some from an exchange. This means there is a direct monetary transmission layer from buyer of the asset to the largest asset holder (Ripple). This means there is risk that Ripple uses the XRP token as a perpetual crowd funding, similar to how other ICO's issued their tokens on Ethereum during the bull run. This is a completely legitimate concern from a counter party perspective and should be weighed into the balance over whether or not you should invest. Let's be 100% transparent though. People who engage in PoW mining using compute also have to fund an ecosystem, electrical generation companies and ASICs manufacturers. The only difference is that one transmission mechanism is obvious the other is hidden behind technical abstraction. All bow down to some fiat supply chain operation. When these assets mature from proto-money or SoVs to be sufficiently liquid to fiat these issues will no longer be as relevant. 3. Price action for a specific digital asset in isolation is a poor metric for me personally. The utilization of the asset, trade volumes, wallet openings, institutional adoption, etc. are more important metrics, particularly if you are not a trader but an investor trying to capture high value at a low price. Thank you for your insights!

We are looking into stuff like this but its probably 6 months away.

I suggest not forgetting about the people paying the bills, ie: the advertisers. Micro transaction can be good for users and content creators but not at the expense of creating significant friction for advertisers. Like it or not, they are the ones funding the system and therefore their voice matter a great deal.

@sylvain m. Re advertisers, did you catch the part where Santiago said that he would sign up for the cable comany when *they pay him* to do so, in return for watching the adverts. This vision of the future turns the current model completely on its head, with viewers being payed for their eyeballs by advertisers, and paying creators for their content directly, with pinpoint accuracy. What we currently have is content creators being paid by advertisers who then spray us with adverts and we pay for the overall experience, which is not ideal. Many of us do not like being advertised to, and if there was a way to cut out the advertiser, and pay the creator directly for their content, we would choose it. Being advertised to would then be a seperate contract that we entered into directly with the advertiser and were paid for.

Hi Nick, I have heard that part yes. And while I can imagine part of the population maybe doing exactly this, it will be a long time coming before this is done at the scale needed to justify the friction this add with advertisers and consumers. Concerning cable, it is a pure cash cow right now with days counted which is why Disney, Comcast, ATT are going to SVOD/AVOD as fast as possible. I am not suggesting advertising will not be challenged, nor that it should not be challenged, however I do think understanding the full dynamic of an industry is key to disrupt it.

I think Nik T put it well, the contract between viewer, content creator, and advertiser has been co-mingled for so long that it's a difficult proposition to untangle. That being said, we are talking about unpaid content. Netflix, Disney+, etc. don't have ads but have a paywall and people have already accepted this a simple contract. To be clear, the endgame is where content is king. So how to decouple this system properly and at scale? It has to start with decentralizing the Content Delivery Network stack. There are projects like VideoCoin started by Halsey Minor (of CNet founding) which are using blockchain to incentivize transcoding, storage, and delivery of video (which comprises 80% of internet data traffic by volume). Combine a dCDN w/ edge computing and payment rails and you can create a production flow environment that challenges the AWS/Akamais of the world. I am working a company that will support these types of projects via compute portfolio, it's called Block Digital Corporation and our pilot should be coming online in Q3. We will be doing a capital raise via a decentralized and fully compliant debt issuance via a Security Token Offering (STO). The next step is to monetize the content. I am also working on that and I have a company called ArzuDIOCE, Inc. (AD, Inc.) that will allow micro-payments to content creators (like TikTok, YouTube, etc.). The telemetry from our structure and payment flows will create a sniper like precision to Ad spend, instead of the shotgun approach referred to in this thread. I'm bullish.

I agree! I think as a taxonomic exercise videos should start differentiating different aspects of the blockchain space (SoV, P2P, ILP, tokens, CBDCs, etc.) and do deep dives. With regards to other technologies I would categorize them into the following aspects of the 4th Industrial Revolution: 1. Internet of Things 2. XR (Augmented Reality / Virtual Reality) 3. Distributed Ledger Technology 4. Machine Learning / AI 5. Automation of Machinery (self driving cars/planes, power plants, supply chains, etc.)

Thanks Chris! I can only code Java, and my wife won't let me code because I already go down enough rabbit holes. That being said, I build all my own computers and I'm a first adopter on technology in general so I like to be on the cutting edge.

Nic, you are tempting me! I am 100% for using decentralized incentive systems to monetize compute resources. In fact, I'm building a business doing exactly this and it's called Block Digital Corporation (BDC). We construct compute portfolios that look for ecosystems like Filecoin wherein we can put compute components to work in parallel. The trick is the balance of component and overall system design. We hope to launch our pilot demonstration Q3, followed by a debt issuance via a Security Token Offering (STO). We will use blockchain to raise capital as it's central to our philosophy as a company.

No. I fear that printed media simply can't keep up with the pace of change, either technological nor conceptual. The way I learned was to follow specific projects, technologies and then learn from the thought leaders in that space from forums like Medium, Telegram, Discord, Quorum, Twitter, etc. It's not a very organized or systematic way of learning but it's the only one with the dynamism for keeping up. It's breathtaking.

If only there were more time! These projects are awesome. It's important to recognize though that in the case of something like Uniswap it's aggregating liquidity "within" the Ethereum ecosystem for specific smart contract operations (like ERC20 token swaps). The Internet of Value can source liquidity outside of any single value network (Ethereum) or liquidity pool. It's an ocean, not a lake.

Ah! The true battle. Visa & MC & Amex see the writing on the wall and the rent-extraction being severely curtailed. They will try and position themselves into the value flows as things become further digitized. They still serve two functions: (1) issuing credit to consumers and earning interest (but that will be challenged by Decentralized Finance), (2) facilitating business on-ramps / off-ramps to digital asset ecosystems and cross-border. In the latter case I can see them becoming connectors. Walmart will inevitably want to tap into the value flows of the IoV on behalf of both their supply chain (cross border FX management / treasury simplification) and their customers (allowing micro payments for video / audio products on Vudu) and the ability to accept any kind of currency of digital asset with value in exchange for products.

Amen to that! Couldn't have said it better.

Thanks Emma for the precision in language. I completely agree, taking a depreciating asset and monetizing it only changes the cash flow balance. If the monetization potential exceeds rate of depreciation (from a market value standpoint) it can either maintain it's value as an asset or grow in value, but at a minimum it is now tied to two markets: the used car resale market & the ride-share markets. With sufficient coupling between those two markets they start to influence one another right? The entire value proposition becomes even more exciting (similar to rental properties). The tax implications are significant and we need algorithmic solutions. This is because the IRS views digital assets as property but does not recognize like-kind exchanges. Every transaction requires resolving the tax bases. This problem can either be solved by improved tax policy (like an exception on digital asset transfer / swaps below a certain amount) or by an algorithmic tax as a function of revenues above cost. One could imagine a real time depreciation curve applied to the income stream to offset revenues. It's only calculations. Chainlink is a decentralized oracle service. What this means is that the information layer of the internet needs to communicate with the value layer of blockchains (which are separate universes to do not "speak" to the outside world). The vision is bringing telemetry from the outside world that is accurate and secure so that the programmable aspects of the technology (like smart contracts) can be leveraged without compromising the security of the network or the transaction. Oracles are an essential element to any digital asset based settlement layer for things like derivatives markets (weather on commodities, conditionals, sports outcomes, etc.) If your teens engage in any type of online gaming they are already digitally native. The conceptual leap is to explain to them that someday their "points", "tokens", "social credibility scores / reputations", etc. will be interoperable with ecosystems outside of the immediate game or social network and they will be able to transact with those assets. Most games / social networks are centralized but with ILP (Interledger Protocol) they don't have to be. Another good concept to expose them to is digital scarcity, the idea that only one copy of a digital product can be represented and other copies are illegitimate (this does not apply go consumables like music yet) but more like collectibles (think baseball digital cards or crypto kitties). It's seems quaint until you extrapolate this concept of digital scarcity to claims on Intellectual Property, domains, virtual property, etc.

Charlie has some incredible insights. I would love to see those metrics applied across many ecosystems to see whether or not they yield consistent results. It's easy to apply his model to a highly liquid, large network model like Bitcoin, a lot more difficult to apply to small projects with high potential. This is the same contrast we see in the VC vs. equities world.

Thanks Chris!

Thanks Steve!

You honor me Matt. The Internet of Value is the solution to the deflationary nature of technology and the failed monetary transmission mechanisms of central banks. We don't need more liquidity (which obviously isn't working), we need to increase the velocity of value so that humans can transact at a greater pace. On a side note, we didn't get a chance to talk about how externalities can be more effectively priced with the micropayment / pathfinding nature of the IoV. Specifically, emissions tracking / taxation with IoT measurements, cradle-to-grave outcome health expenditures, waste streams, etc. We are way way behind philosophically as the technology is getting ahead of us, but isn't that always the pattern?

Thanks Tim, I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Friction-less barter to be precise! This is my main learning, abstractions can be facilitated by code in the service of humans.

I've never heard of it, but I checked it out today. Appears to be a standard exchange. There are many and I use many, depending on the transaction types, digital asset types, and fiat rails. Some exchanges support ACH, others FedWire, credit card, etc. Some exchanges don't require KYC/AML but have withdrawal limits. All of these metrics should be weighed in terms of choosing the best exchange for your need. On the issue, it's true that exchanges have the potential of being large Internet of Value participants (connectors in Interledger Protocol parlance), but don't discount DEX's. Decentralized exchanges organically create order books without centralized operators and match buyers and sellers without concentrating value in a vulnerable hot wallet. DEX's will take over the ecosystem in due course and eventually we may all become connectors in addition to being senders/receives. Raoul cleverly alluded to the ability for people to become facilitators of liquidity, and I think that's precisely what's going to happen.

There are no guarantees that technology yields a better outcome because it's a tool for amplification. It will amplify the good, and bad, in society. We also know that from studying history that using technology to empower individuals via decentralization is a counter to aggregation (think democracy vs. kings) and is net good. I do anticipate that individuals will tokenize themselves, sports athletes are already doing this for brand contracts. I can see students issuing a token offering to investors for college loans (for example), the interest rate being a function of prior performance (test scores, etc.) This is largely true today, what's different is that it's not longer being gate-kept by a few but opens up to the many. If I'm feeling humanitarian as a philanthropist I should be able to directly help a person on the other side of the world obtain opportunity if I so choose, this is largely impossible today without much of the value being captured by intermediaries. The future is bright, but this will come with the discomfort of leaving the cave.

Very exciting! The future is coming fast.

Will do! Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed the talk.

Thank you for watching Sylvain.

btw Santiago i'm not calling you a cheerleader - was a great discussion and i learned lots

All words matter. I don't think governments can "ban" Bitcoin because of it's decentralized nature. So long as there are two nodes anywhere in the world and a computer to process the hash Bitcoin will survive. Now, on the spectrum of difficult can they make it to transact in it, how much friction can they impose, I would say quite a lot. For one, they can attack repositories of liquidity (like exchanges), they can pressure financial institutions to avoid supporting fiat onramps / off ramps, they can use force to compel large holders to give up their private keys to either seize the asset for destruction or to depress the market with large bulk sell-offs. There are many ways in which governments can "set back" digital assets in general, but they can't stop it, can't ban it, etc. They will capitulate when a large enough percentage of their constituency demands it and it becomes expedient. With regards to flourishing, Bitcoin as a SoV for a Chinese citizen under capital controls while their purchasing power dwindles as the Renminbi weakens is a pretty good narrative. The problem I have with SoV as language is that it suggests different things to different people, and that's because value is information, it has a tendency to flow not ossify. We WANT to ossify it, so that we can sleep better thinking that our future is more secure, but the reality is that true security comes from increasing the velocity of value, not hoarding it. Permissionless DLT is like open source software, in the beginning it was met with revulsion because it impacted many entrenched interest, but everyone capitulates at a critical mass. We are approaching that point.

Increasing the velocity of value rather than hoarding. Beautiful concept!

Thanks Dominic.

We won't find solutions in our leaders, we need to do it with each other. We now have to tools to do so! Let our leadership compete for our affections.

Damn, I think I'm going to frame this comment. My wife will be displeased when I can no longer safely traverse my doorways with the size of my head after this comment. Thanks!

This! Let's all have a level playing field on which we can compete and serve one another. Incentives drive behavior, so let's create a system in which we are rewarded for sharing value rather than hoarding it!

@Santiag78758327

Thank you for the kind words Julien.

Thanks for the good word, my first interview so it means alot. I'm projecting programmatic taxation as an amelioration tool for gross income inequality (Empire Strikes Back). When policy makers realize the gravity of the situation these types of concepts will come. It can be either symbiotic or parasitic. It's our duty as citizenry to ensure it's the former.

I couldn't agree more, in fact I'm building a business around this premise. One of the selling points for power generation is that we are taking their product global in the most literal sense. We are focusing on the following electrical to compute to digital asset pipelines: 1. Proof of Work 2. Video Transcoding, storage, delivery (dCDNs) 3. Machine Learning / AI 4. Content workflows (renderings, graphic processing in movies / video games) 5. XR (Augemented and virtual reality rendering & low latency delivery) etc. etc. etc. Sky's the limit. We will be launching this initiative via a Security Token Offering so that qualified investors can participate in our debt offering and be direct recipients of revenues, all transparent and on chain.

Great questions Viktor. There is a difference between having a majority of the hashing power needed for a 51% attack on the chain (for example a double spend through longest chain swaps) and jurisdictional control of mining rigs. Why? Because you can have mining pools that are non-geographic but still under the control of malicious operators. This is the miracle / curse of the technology. That being said, we've seen this drama play out with Bitcoin cash / SV in real-time and the result was a code and community consensus fork. This is what I meant by the cell division analogy. This thing will happen and investors need to understand the attack vectors, splits, forks, sovereign influences, non-sovereign influences, etc. For the record Bitcoin nodes (the data blocks), exchanges, and mining operators all are part of the consensus process for new Bitcoin upgrades to they all play a role on the forking process. I should know, Coinbase tried in keep Bitcoin Cash from me when it split from Bitcoin and I was very unhappy. They capitulated after community pressure when it became clear they weren't get to keep all the Bitcoin cash. With regards to electricity price and Bitcoin, they are uncorrelated. The way this expressed is as follows. The network difficulty dynamically adjusts in response to available hashing power. This is a competitive environment. Whatever happens on the compute does not change either the block time, nor the supply schedule. The economic gyrations of miner capitulation and additions have no impact on Bitcoin supply. At this point in the game the supply of Bitcoin, being a scheduled process, is becoming a smaller fraction of overall market volume as a source of liquidation on exchanges (slippage is going down as liquidity rises). Apart from all of this, many hardened mining operators have large arsenals of bitcoin for rainy days to finance operations through the depressed periods to acquire market share from less efficient operators. It's a ruthless business. Fiat inflows into the ecosystem will come if the narrative persists as a value proposition. That is to say that if it intends to be a reliable SoV, and can prove it's claims consistently at scale, then money will flow in until a natural equilibrium with fiat is achieved. We are getting close to that brakeout point. The best brand promoter for Bitcoin are the central banks.

Yes, Proof of Stake is what I consider an unproven proposition. Maybe one of the mistakes we will learn from in the future is that the incentive / tokenomic structure upon which you build your initial community consensus has far reaching consequences. It's like trying to decide monetary policy for all history in the first rule set, incredibly naive. The regulatory issues are very interesting, not from the perspective of enforcement by unregistered securities, but from the nature of what it means to be a company, a legal entity, property, equity, etc. When I own ETH I technically own both an incentive system and fuel for transactions, it is not a claim on property, it IS the property. Regulators haven't grasped that they dynamism of property ownership is going to change radically. Prepare!

Great points! Thank you. I regret talking so much about Ethereum, I simply used it as an example for my learning curve because many viewers are familiar with it. I agree that a large part of it's growth is that it's permissionless, but don't underestimate permissioned blockchains that are storming the trade finance world. The projects being built under the radar on frameworks like Marco Polo (by R3) are mind-blowing. They are solving real world problems at scale, with a compliance and identity layer. Hyperledger Fabric is another. All of these systems will be tied together with technologies like Interledger Protocol (ILP), Hyperledger, Overledger, etc. hence Internet of Value.

Agreed. An entire industry of analysts are going to spring up to keep track of developments, perform valuations, and extrapolations. This is a healthy part of the ecosystem growth. The end game is bridging them all together in an interoperable framework so we can get the best of all worlds and get some emerging properties to take on the big boys and put them in their lane.

The RV app is annoying and only works when it feels like it. I use my phone for all RV content, but I access it via the website in a browser. Duck Duck Go browser works well for me. A little clumsy, but much more reliable than the app.

Agreed. My android mobile app version has some problems that I'll bring up with the team. Here are some of my complaints: 1. I can't initialize Chromecast to stream from the native app to a compatible device (like a smart TV) w/out having to go to a desktop chrome browser (you can't even do it from the mobile chrome browser). 2. I can't stream back a video with the screen off (I can do this with YouTube so it's built into the mobile framework). The only way to hear audio only is to download an MP3 file (which can allow illegal sharing BTW!). 3. The auto-resume functionality for playback is not consistent. Sometimes episodes start at the beginning, other times in progress, very hard to pinpoint the bug.

The torrent protocol is brilliant, but we are a long way from protocol to what is Bittorrent the company, and what has occurred with respect to Tron in the acquisition. I have no concerns with the technology, especially at is it relates to file sharing (for my business I don't even use a cloud or network, we use a file sharing application called Resilio Sync that keeps us all synchronized in our offices without using a 3rd party and at the base layer is bittorrent). I do have concerns with Tron, the founder, and the direction. We can dive into that whenever you want.

There are a great many negatives to digital assets, a subset of which is crypto currency, if you want to talk about taxonomy. For one, large early adopters often times hold a disproportionate influence on the course and development of these nascent ecosystems. That can lead to excessive market manipulation, code forks, etc. The other problem is the complexity of the technology, which is a barrier for mass adoption. This is why interoperability is so important, we need a layer that abstracts away all of the complexity and simply works, the same way TCP/IP works for your internet access. A PPP program has already been demonstrated in the digital asset space, it's called an "airdrop". Often times though this comes from centralized issuance to incentivize use by "gifting" early participants with free shares. It's a jump start mechanism. For mature fiat currencies like the $, a CBDC can fulfill this role by granting citizenry direct access to monetary stimulus from fiscal policy or liquidity from monetary policy. In both instances the technology allows for tracking and compliance. That being said, all of the above does not preclude systemic crisis in any of these arenas, be them micro or macro, because humans be humans.

The reason PayPal won't take over the exchange market is simple, they represent a single pool of liquidity and by all measures, is a demographic preference. Venmo and others are favored by millenials, so how do you make the two systems interoperate without everyone having to have accounts on both? Answer, Interledger Protocol. By using streaming micropayments, path-finding, and competitive connectors you can create a Internet of Value that services everyone. I agree there will be dominant players with economies of scale, but the moment they attempt to leverage their market share in unfavorable terms there will be a competitor that will steal all the flow. This is key.

The DeFi space is incredibly exciting because at the end of the day, for me, it represents an opportunity to allocate capital in an efficient, yet distributed manner. It has the potential to grow without creating systemic risk since there is no central counterparty. It will swallow up Wall Street IMPO.

Fantastic interview BTW. There were not many comments, but this guy is top notch. Love the concept of interoperability. Hats' off to Raoul for the crypto coverage.

Ethereum's history is checkered, without a doubt. The rollback done in the early days was a smart move from a governance perspective because the Parity flaw would have been a black eye to the community value proposition. That being said, it was mature because had they not done it it may have resulted in a failure to start. These are the kinds of debates that need to happen withing communities. If they are small and requisite consensus required to do these kinds of rollbacks exist, it's 100% legit. For the record, I don't work on Ethereum at all. The thing with digital assets is they are not all intended to be "currencies" in the traditional sense that they are fiat, often times they simply represent an incentive system to achieve an end objective, in this case payment for computation (gas). The Bitcoin derivatives are trying to decide whether they want to evolve into SoV or P2P payment systems, all of which are valid and admirable use cases. I hope the main takeaway of the conversation is that we don't need to be tribal about digital assets, nor form adversarial positions, because with interoperability we have the technology to choice and exchange value without compromise. That's the revolution.