You may use this new feed address.
One of the reasons I feel so strongly about blogging, especially raw, partially formed ideas is because it invites conversation, ideas, dialogue from the community of NSM members.
Collectively, we know more than I do so I embrace when people write in with ideas, suggestions, and questions.
This week, Roger, who works in the real estate industry, sent me the following:
I keep reading these and thinking, how is this going to affect me? I think the broad intro will be the same as everyone in the world but what if it could be used to privatize or ease the access to the exchange of real estate, specifically title transfers.
Chain of title is already a thing that is recorded in the land records. Historically they are lost or clouded or require extensive reviewing or rechecking each time there is a transfer and thus title insurance is required and can be cumbersome to go back in the records each time. I don’t want to post that publicly because I’m not an expert but it could be an opportunity?
What I like about this is the fact that Roger has exactly identified an inevitable use case for blockchain technologies.
He sees the inefficiency and the opportunity and he's informed all of us as well.
In doing so, we're all able to better understand how the future will take shape.
Now, imagine...if everyone who read this blog sent in one idea for how their industry will get impacted by the wave of decentralization?
That would be hundreds of scenarios for investment opportunity, job growth, and risk mitigation (as in, you won't get caught off guard when it does happen).
Roger--thanks for this contribution.
Now that I’ve been through the Internet wave and the social media wave, there’s some pattern recognition going on in terms of what is happening in the Blockchain/decentralized world.
Honestly, I don’t know if that’s right or not.
But what I do suspect is an indicator of where a new technology is on the adoption curve is whether mainstream firms jump on the “keyword bingo jargon” bandwagon to sound forward-thinking while actually not being so much.
In this case, the recent Accenture announcement saying they had made an “editable” blockchain falls into that category.
The whole basis of a blockchain is digital immutability, so an editable version is an inherent contradiction, kind of like saying the Godfather is a “chick flick.”
Still, it is a data point and they are probably doing it in response to customer inquiries about how to “do the blockchain thing” but also “protect the downside risk of the enterprise.”
It’s great to have a new database offering that is distributed and more efficient, but calling it a blockchain does a disservice to the rest of the industry and only creates doubt and confusion.
But the major point is this…if they are doing it, demand (or at least interest) in blockchains are growing.
Note: obviously the key is to not get caught up in pattern recognition so you are blinded to outliers. That’s why I blog though…you’ll keep me honest.
In my opinion, he is as on top of things as can be, so it’s rare that I think he’s off-target.
In short, Simon Denny is a genius.
Here’s why: The biggest challenge that I foresee in the world of decentralized computing/systems is identifying the right message to make it palatable to more mainstream potential customers and finding the right community of advocates to help you get over the chasm.
Telling the story of the blockchain’s potential through a board game like Risk (as this exhibit did) is the quintessential “same, but different” that helps people adjust to new concepts.
The complementary components of the exhibit really helped visualize the potential of this worldview. It’s difficult, I believe, to walk out of there unconvinced.
Some pics here.
I was at a party the other night with a friend, Aaron, whom I would consider to be a Tier 1 technologist.
He said something both pragmatic and scary.
"I'm kind of at the point where I have just accepted that everything I do is being tracked, measured, and sold."
He's at the front-end of the curve, I think, where he's basically acknowledged that to participate in the modern world, you need to sacrifice your privacy.
There are plenty of others who don't realize they are making this trade-off.
I was thinking about this because I wonder if we have sort of reached the "end of history" and we will all reach that point OR will we get to a point where we say enough is enough?
Looking at last week's news about Yahoo's massive data hack, it feels like these have become commonplace and we all just accept that we'll get a note from the company saying "hey, we lost all your data, but we've bought you 2 years of Identity protection to make up for it."
In fact, prior to the Yahoo announcement, there was an article in the WSJ asking: When to disclose you've been hacked?
As if the hack is a foregone conclusion and you just have to figure out if it's bad enough so that you tell the people whose persona info has been compromised.
Or will we say..."No! That's no longer ok."
The problem is that, until very recently (and arguably not even yet), we haven't really had an alternative.
That seems to be changing (at least the existence of an alternative, that is).
The question is whether our habits have become so ingrained in terms of trusting big corporations to protect us that we won't be able to overcome the inertia (or dare to remove ourselves from the surveillance state) to do something about it.
We're starting to see distributed storage platforms like Storj that will make it increasingly difficult, near impossible, for a hacker to find what he is looking for.
"Adding data to the Storj network is like blowing a handful of encrypted sand onto an encrypted beach - as the beach grows, it becomes much harder for an attacker to find the specific grains of sand s/he wants."
So, the uber-question is: when will people like Aaron say (to quote the movie Network ):
"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
If you don't give any money to charity, this post probably isn't for you. But if philanthropy is something you care about, it might be.
In the recent Forbes Unchained podcast, Blockchain 101 With Andreas Antonopoulos: How Bitcoin Makes Each Of Us As Powerful As A Bank hosted by Laura Shin with guest Andreas Antonopoulos, the conversation turned to blockchain-powered automated giving.
He gave the example of the earthquake in Haiti.
I'm going to extend it a bit here.
Let's say that, at the beginning of the year, you earmarked a certain percentage of your income to charity, similar to the way that you might put money into a 401k.
Then, for example, let's say you prioritize your charitable giving according to certain criteria....natural disasters, religious causes, health issues, whatever.
Finally, you could have a pre-programmed rating for severity (earthquakes above 6.5 or number of deaths reported-gruesome I know and sorry about that, but part of the example) that automatically channels money directly to the organization collecting it (reducing their overhead and thus enabling more to go to recipients) or...even better...automatically sending it to people who are impacted.
And all of this would be automated, verifiable, transparent (no money getting lost to corruption/graft) and in line with your principles.
Plus, you'd be helping more people faster and more cost-effectively.
I'm reading Kevin Kelly's book "The Inevitable: Understanding the 12 Technological Forces That Will Shape our Future" and this feels like one such inevitable thing.
Ok, so I'm only on Chapter 2 and Kelly will probably get to this, but the idea that you can have automated activity around your money (pre-programmed) that you can verify at any time (and others could as well if you want--think about all the furor re: tax returns) seems like it's a no-brainer.
Maybe not in this way, but it will happen.
I know I'm on a Laura Shin/Forbes Unchained podcast kick, but what can I say? There's a lot of value in there.
The most recent one that inspired this post (and a few more to come) is Blockchain 101 With Andreas Antonopoulos: How Bitcoin Makes Each Of Us As Powerful As A Bank.
Andreas is a well respected entrepreneur and bitcoin expert and in this interview he makes a key point that I think should be in everyone's frame of reference.
Roughly paraphrasing, he said "the big disruption isn't Bitcoin or even Blockchains, it's the move to de-centralization."
He's right and he foreshadows a key problem for the industry as it matures.
How to tell the story of a decentralized existence.
Think about it...for centuries, human societies have been organized in a hierarchical, centralized fashion. Tribal chieftains, nobility, kings.
Heck, "all roads led to Rome" for a reason...it's where power was concentrated.
In the past century, large organizations were built in a centralized "command and control" fashion.
Satellite offices were like the distant provinces of the empire...irrelevant and basically ignored.
Now, every satellite office or remote outpost plays a critical role in the infrastructure and integrity of the entire system.
It's not about the center.
It's about the periphery...and everywhere in between. It's the nodes.
But getting people to think like that isn't going to be easy.
It's like someone walking into a car dealership and saying "I really need 4 wheel drive."
"No, you don't," says the salesperson. "Our cars hover."
"Right, but the winters here are tough. I've always needed 4 wheel drive."
"Yes, winters are rough here, for sure. But now that cars hover and don't touch the ground, you don't need wheels."
"Great. So how much are the best tires?"
The paradigm shift is tremendous. People like Laura and Andreas are paving the way to help others understand it.
Not going to be easy, but will be interesting.
Learned a new phrase today.
I was chatting with Neeraj and Jerry of the Coin Center and they introduced me to the CoinCap app (also accessible on your desktop through CoinCap.io) which tracks all of the cryptocurrencies out there.
I made a remark that I have something like 10 different ones.
And they said, “ah, you have an ‘alt-portfolio’.”
The other day, I was listening to the Unchained podcast interview of ARK's Chris Burniske And Coinbase's Adam White and while I don’t remember the exact data they shared, they had some really interesting points to make about how Bitcoin as an investment could start making a lot of sense for many people.
They pointed to how it didn’t necessarily move with or against standard markets which gives it a special kind of appeal from a diversification perspective.
I know that many people still think of Bitcoin as a Darknet currency that is best used for buying drugs on Silk Road type markets, but I think we’re past those early days.
There are plenty of issues with Bitcoin (block size being one of them), but I think the eco-system is past the tipping point.
There are a lot of people who have a vested interest in the success of Bitcoin so, while it’s not guaranteed, I think it’s increasingly likely.
I will admit that I am long on Bitcoin, so I am one of those with a vested interest.
Necessary disclaimer: Do not construe this post as financial advice.
Was listening to a fascinating Unchained podcast from Forbes featuring Bill Tai, a longtime Silicon Valley insider.
Bill was describing Blockchains as the 6th big Wave of technological revolution.
Whether it's the 1st, 10th, or 500th doesn't matter, but at one point, he made a killer comment.
"TCP/IP is to Telcos as Blockchain is to banks."
He went on to talk about just how data, voice, images, etc. could be broken up into packets for delivery over the network and reassembled, that blockchains give us the power to attach the same properties/capabilities to physical items.
I heard him say this as I was stopped at a redlight.
Looking at the car in front of me, I started to imagine the various components of the car and how each one could be an IoT device, registered on the blockchain, and delivered/managed as a service.
Let's explore the tires, for example.
A smart tire would have its own IP/blockchain address and be connected not to a car per se, but it would record how many miles it had driven, how many punctures (from nails, for example), it had and were subsequently repaired (or self-repaired).
The tire manufacture could send Over The Air (OTA) updates to the tire that maybe change the safe mileage limit (up or down) or inform the car owner that it needs to be changed.
Remember...tires can be bought and sold, so someone who has an old car that only does a small amount of driving each year is happy to have a good tire at a good price for its needs. The tire could sell itself on behalf of the car owner when it recognizes that the habits of the car to which it is attached have changed.
This protects the past and future owner of the tire. Right now, you have no way of knowing that a tire or a phone or a TV or a laptop is exactly what the seller says it is, but if your refurbished laptop could be verified that the parts are up to a certain standard because they are evident in the blockchain, that's pretty cool.
The car owner could be Uber or anyone, but that's a different topic.
The point of this thought exercise is merely that if you can assign a virtual address to a physical thing (a tire, a soccer ball, a laptop), you open up an entirely new range of business opportunities.
Every physical item can be broken down to its smallest level, get "packetized" and have its value optimized.
That's pretty revolutionary.
(Follow Bill on Twitter...he's apparently a big kiteboarder as well and does events where people network while kiteboarding. Mine kind of event)
Back when I started thinking about the potential disruptive force of blockchains, one of the use cases that jumped into my head was supply chain provenance.
In other words...how do we actually know that the things we are buying are actually what we THINK we are buying.
If brands are about a promise to deliver a specific story, then the authenticity of that story is critical to increasing the brand value.
The other day, I was on the train back from New York and sat next to an elegantly dressed woman in her 80s. Refined and thoughtful, she had lived in Milan, Brussels, and New York, and now lives in Delaware.
As is my way, we started a conversation and it turns out her family is in the wine business.
After I helped her customize the notifications on her iPhone, we started talking about how the world had changed in her lifetime and how it might change in the future.
Naturally, I shared that I was interested in this new technology called "blockchains."
I began to explore how they might impact her business.
She was skeptical. Which was fine.
Eventually, I said..."well, I bet if we google it, we'll find something."
She was surprised.
"Forward it to me," she asked. "I want my son [who runs the business] to see this."
Good for her.
While the provenance of a bottle of a wine secured by a blockchain may not be a differentiator right now, it's not difficult to imagine that it will be one day in the near future.
Soon thereafter, I saw another article..about blockchains and fish.
Apparently, there's a huge racket going on already in terms of fish substitution (you buy Grouper, but you get something else).
That, and illegal fishing/overfishing issues.
Bottom line: the blockchain revolution is about to hit the shores of a lot of industries where transparency hasn't always been at the forefront.
Should be interesting to watch that.