Hey, everyone. This podcast episode is coming out on 08/08/2023, AKA the official publishing date for my book, Blockchain Radicals, How Capitalism Ruined Crypto and How to Fix It. What you're about to listen to is a recording of the book launch events in New York City, which took place July 23 at the MetaLabel office. As you'll hopefully hear, it was a fun event and was hosted by David z Morris, the chief insights columnist at CoinDesk. I first give a short presentation about the structure of the book, and then he interviews me and facilitates a q and a with the audience. Afterwards was a book signing and hang out with food and drinks. In the show notes, be sure to check out the Linktree where I've listed out several different places where you can order the book in different countries and regions, so be sure to check it out if you haven't ordered a copy yet. I will also be continuing my book tour as I'll be in Dallas, Texas August 10 at Who's Books at 7PM, as well as Medifest in Pula, Croatia, the Crypto Commons gathering in Austria, and in Berlin in mid September, selling and signing books if you happen to be going to any of those places. And as well, I'd like to give a very big thank you to everyone who supported me over the past years financially via Patreon or the TBS subscription NFT, who without, I would not have been able to get this far, no doubt. There's still a lot more I'm wanting to do related to the book, so be on the lookout for that through the newsletter, CryptoLafda's Discord community, and the other usual places where you can keep up with me. Alright, and with that, I hope you enjoy the recording from the Gold Launch Event.

Thank you. Thank you. So, yeah. Hi. I'm Josh. I wrote a book called Blockchain Radicals, How Capitalism Ruined Crypto and How to Fix It. It came out of sort of the, I guess, synthesizing a lot of the work that I've been doing over the past three years of the blog and podcast, kind of like exploring these spaces and niches and research that people were doing that I felt like was not getting, like, much attention to. And, like, more specifically, usually having related to do some sort of, like, more left leaning or progressive kind of view of the use of technology. So, yeah. So about me, in case you need anything more, my name is Josh. I wrote, or I have been working in blockchain for about five years. I started a blog podcast around three years ago. I have a project called Bread Chain Cooperative that I've been working on for a while as well to kind of synthesize and put into practice a lot of things that I've been learning and experimenting with. I'm also filming a documentary on crypto that's taking a little bit longer than I thought it would take. And, yeah, I've been most recently, I guess, in the podcast focusing on, giving critique on the network state, a book by Balaji, who's a a tech VC think boy. And, yeah, and that's, like, the logo that I've been using on social media and such, for a while. So with so what I want to do with this presentation is just kind of give you a taste of kind of, like, the overarching framework and, like, structure of the book. And so what kind of when I was asked to write the book, I kind of, didn't I wasn't, like, given a thing to write about. There was, like, I'll just write something, like, about the left and, like, blockchain stuff. Like, write a little, like, pamphlet or something. But it ended up becoming kind of, like, a bit more of that. And that was after I I kind of like made this connection with the work of Gilles Deleuze, who's a French post Marxist thinker. And the sort of thing that he's really well known for is or one of the things, besides being very difficult to read, is what's called the critique of representational thinking. So what he says is that oftentimes, in order to understand new things, we use models of the old and sort of impose on it in order to try and, think about how it can work and, like, to make predictions about it and such. And he's saying this is wrong and bad, and we shouldn't be thinking this way. Example of this would be something like the drum machine I like to use. So the drum machine was, piece of technology that was created in order to allow people to create, or to be able to play music without needing a drummer with a drum set. So you can get the machine, you buy it, you press the buttons, and then it'll play the beats that the drummer was supposed to play, but he couldn't make it to practice. So in this kind of, like, conceptual model of what the drum machine was meant to do, it was a representation of a drummer with a drum set. That means it was a lesser version. So, like, a lot of, like, platonic, philosophy, like, focuses around, like, the ideal forms of things. And so he describes this as thinking like a tree, that you have, like, the trunk, which is, like, the ideal representation of whatever it is. For example, a drummer with a drum set. And then you have the things kind of going around it that are representations of it, but lesser than the ideal form. And so Deleuze is obsessed with potatoes because potatoes have what's called a rhizomatic, structure to their roots. So do, like, mycelial networks of mushrooms, but essentially, it describes a shape that doesn't have a clear center to it, that it's kind of, like, overlapping and has different it's kinda like a hierarchical structure, different centers. And so, kind of the thing that I connected with, the book and with crypto was that this type of thinking is endemic in crypto, since basically the start of it. You know, Bitcoin was created as a peer to peer electronic cash system. That was its intention. That was kinda like the representation. That was a model that, you know, Satoshi or and whoever they are, sort of made Bitcoin to be. And inside was infused, you know, this narrative of being similar to gold and, this kind of metaphor or this model of using, Bitcoin as a, kind of extension of, like, thinking that the gold standard was the best form of monetary system. I was thinking about Bitcoin as digital gold. And so since there had already been sort of this existing political group of of people who we call them gold bugs or people who believe this. It was like an easy kind of, like, way to get a lot of people who are already connected, believing in this one thing that thinks should exist and willing to pay money for it, especially. They got became attracted to Bitcoin. So that's, like, kind of, like, the beginning of it. You can also if you go through, just, like, a ton of things, code is law. So equating code and law together, decentralized finance. It's kind of like this thing to, like, let's do finance but decentralized. The network state is, you know, also something. DAOs used to be called decentralized autonomous corporations. So, like, the the way that we kind of, like, conceptualize these things was already modeled on things that already existed and that had certain, implications to them. This is a, endemic. So this is I like I like this quote from Alfred Kraszewski that I think, kinda goes well with this, that the map is not the territory. The word is not the thing it describes. Whenever the map is confused with the territory, a semantic disturbance is set up in the organism. The disturbance continues until the limitation of the map is recognized. Just saying that, this kind of representational thinking or the this metaphorical thinking in certain ways, like, creates a map and imposes a map on the territory, which is the thing that actually exists. And, the second quote that I really like is that, all models are wrong, but some are useful. So, you know, it's nice to have a map of, you know, Peru whenever you're in Peru. It's nice if you need to, like, find out where you need to go, you're following the streets or whatever, but the map of Peru is not the same as Peru. We and we shouldn't, like, confuse those things together. And so I think in crypto, we have many different types of maps that oftentimes people try to impose upon what it is in order to try to understand it better, but also as well in order to attract a clientele and in order to get people to separate them from their money, essentially, to buy their product and to buy their tokens or whatever else because it, you know, it adheres to an already preexisting, model of way that people think. And I think this is, like, a very, like, political choice. So, like, I like the work of of Gramsci, and he has this concept called cultural hegemony that oftentimes, you know, this this was used to explain that, social control structures of society, that the working class, kind of gets imposed this worldview by the upper classes as a way to, like, impose a certain way of thinking about the world and understanding of the world. Like, the map of our world is one that was modeled after those who have the power in order to model that world. And they impose that through structures, through institutions, and whatever else. And so in the book, kind of what I went through and applied this to cryptocurrency was, I kind of listed out the most common, representational models that are used in the cryptocurrency world, and I've divided the book into three sections. Section one is crypto as money, section two is crypto as finance, and section three as is crypto as coordination. So these are kind of, like, the three ways that I've seen just, like, in my time kind of keeping track with it, how it's kind of evolved more. In the beginning, before Ethereum, for example, like, money was kind of, like, the the main thing that people were, like, trying to tackle and, like, create making Bitcoin, like, this monetary system. Then with the advent of smart contracts, like, financial infrastructure became to be more of a thing that people wanted to emulate. And then I think more recently, you have people who are kind of, like, I think there's been a some amount of self reflection in the crypto world, like, oh, that we can't be financializing everything, and it's not so fun to be only about, like, trading digital beans with one another. And so what you're seeing is kind of, like, this expansion of the of the, like, the representational model. Money and finance could be thought of as different coordination mechanisms. And I think part of this is just, like, this evolution of people being like, oh, wait. That's not what it is. Oh, wait. That's not what it is. It's always something bigger and bigger because we're exploring more and more of the territory as time goes on and people use it. And then through all of that, in the end, I try to lay out a new concept for thinking about technology that I call techno probabilism that's meant to kind of push back against the idea of techno determinism or, like, the idea that technology is, like, the only thing that determines reality, and try to provide some more context to that question and problem about, you know, structure and agency and whether or not we have the ability to change and influence the way that we think about technology. And so yeah. So, like, this this kind of this is kind of, like, how I, you know, horribly kinda want to represent, what this kinda looks like. You have the terrain of, like, all the things that are that are possible, which is, like, kind of, like, unknown or, like, impossible to really know fully completely because we can't do it all all at once, but that the kind of the the main sort of mental model representation that we've been thinking about has sort of expanded more and more to to cover more of the terrain, but I think a lot of that terrain has still not been covered probably. And that's kind of, like, the things that I'm interested in or want to point out a little bit more sometimes. And I think this is, like, important, and it's kind of, like, a repetition of, again, like, what has happened over the Internet. The Internet was one thing at one point. I really don't like the whole, like, Web one, Web two, Web three type of narrative, but it is, like, safe to say that the Internet looks a lot different now than it did a long time ago. And we can also see that, like, the Internet is not forever. So the Internet has kind of evolved and adapted and changed based on the conditions and what has been, become, like, tooling available for different types of websites and, content over the Internet. And so yeah. So one of the things I I really like David's tweets a while back, that I think was really, like, really resonated with me as far as how to kind of I think we should be rethinking these types of things is to just build things more collectively. I think, one of the kind of main, maps or models of the world that I think we are constantly imposed upon is one, like, that is very individualistic, one that is very isolated and alienated. And so one of the things with, you know, for all its flaws, blockchain and cryptocurrencies, it does provide, I think, for a lot of people this, like, sliver of hope that, like, maybe we can create more collective ways of building things together. Even though a lot of people may not be doing that or thinking about it that way, I think that this is something that is, like, very could be very, very fruitful as far as our relationship to, the Internet and technology because I think, like, everybody kind of hates their relationship with the Internet. I think everyone's kind of, like, ambivalent towards it at this point for, for good reason. But I think we also are reliant on it in certain ways that we would not want to give up because we like to have connection with people that are on the other side of the world or whatever else. That is a nice thing that we can do as humans. And so, yeah, with the book, I got a bunch of really nice quotes from people, including Vitalik, Nick Cernick, Primavera Di Filippi, and a bunch of other people that were really, influential for me when I was, writing and, like, doing my podcast. And I found out that doing a podcast was a really nice way to network with people, so I was lucky to be able to have connections with these guys. And yeah. So the book comes out August 8, but if you ordered, a book online with a book event, then you get a book here a little bit earlier than, the launch event or than the official launch. But, yeah, I think that's it. There we go.

That should

Yeah. So I think the I mean, I would not personally characterize something like Ethereum or Bitcoin as money at all or, like, any really cryptocurrency as money, just, like, comparing it to, like, what the actual definition is. The, like, thing that I think is interesting when it comes to cryptocurrency and relationship to money is more the, like, the governance of not money, but, like, currencies or tokens, which maybe you can put money as, like, you know, one aspect or, like, one one one type. And so, like, I like like, I think of ether ether, for example, or Bitcoin or really any of these as first and foremost as, like, kind of vouchers for using the network. And, yes, it's monetized because you have to buy it most of the time. That's, like, the 99% of people, that's how they interact with it, that they buy it first. And so it has, like, a clear price. It's a kind of, a kind of commodity. And I think that's kind of, you know, in the book I go through as well, like, there are a lot of, properties of these tokens that mimic things about money, and people will kind of, like, cling on to those things and say, it's money because it can do this. Like, I can send it to someone, therefore, it's money. But it's kind of, like, I mean yeah. I don't know. They haven't spent the time to kind of, like, understand what, the kind of, like, social, institution that money kind of, inhibits. And what I find interesting for me personally is, like I said, more about on the governance side. Right now, kind of the monetary system is a very, like, technocratic institution. Like, there is no kind of, like, democratic input for what it is. There is, like, a certain imperative of, like, keeping liquidity in markets or something like that as being, like, the one thing that they need to do, and this has, like, a lot of downstream effects to to our situation now. And so I think, yeah, thinking about ways and these examples of, different forms of money is more interesting to me than, like, trying to, like like, the gold standard type of narrative about money is one that thinks of money as, like, a type of commodity or, like, a natural commodity that has, like, intrinsic value. I know you know this a lot because you've studied gold bugs before, which is just, like, a very, it's a shallow way of understanding money and how it works and not thinking of it instead as, like, this kind of social institution. For the for the for the heads out there, it's a it's a very great example of reification. Yeah. Oh, no. I mean, that I think I think that's basically it. So, like, I'm more interested in these, like, experiments of, like,

Yeah. I mean, I think that's, like, like, for me, mutual credit is a very interesting system to think about. Yeah. And you have a great analysis of an example in the book. Yeah. Yeah. So focus on circles UBI, which is based in Berlin, for that one. But, like yeah. So, like, you know, all models are wrong, but some are useful. I think there, are kind of what has happened is kinda like the hegemonic models of money, of finance are the things that generally people are wanting to build in the cryptocurrency world because that's, like, that's, the quickest way to making money, and that's, like, the imperative of capital if you're gonna invest in a business. There's, like, a lot of, like, you know, neoliberal brain in the cryptocurrency world of, like, that's basically in order to change the world, you have to make a start up, that makes money itself and takes venture capital and whatever else. But when it comes to money, you know, yeah, I think taking I think it's become an interesting place of experimentation where you can take other types of models that have not been able to get the same amount of traction as a dominant one because it is an alternative space where people are trying to experiment and filled with people who are very skeptical of the current institutions and want to create something different, I think it makes, like, a fruitful space. So, like, I really liked a recent article from Brett Scott, who's, like, a a money researcher, where he kinda talks about, the synthesis, like, a he like, kinda like a crude dialectical synthesis of, like, the, monetary, like, crypto token world or commodity money, thinking of crypto world with kinda, like, the more alternative, like, historically more progressive, kind of, monetary and currency experimentation space with community currencies, and so forth. And kinda, like, mixing those two together to create something where we use the models of these kind of alternative currency and community currency spaces, but up get the affordances of the technology as well. So, like, I think for him, it's a lot to do with scale. I think the kind of the one of the critiques of a lot of these kind of localized attempts at doing these is that they oftentimes don't last too long or they're reliant on, like, a particular person who spends a lot of time administering the system. Mhmm. I think, like, you know, being able to automate so that you're not reliant on this type of thing, but people can just use it is something that's powerful. And being able to create a space where people can kind of collectively govern

Yeah. I mean, I don't think it's like it's not deterministic, but it is, like, getting way ahead of the game, if that makes sense. Like, like, the unfortunate, like, truth about Bitcoin, I think, for for me is that it was successful as a technological implementation of a particular politics, and it, like, it is playing out that politics in its structure and in the way that people are interacting with it. And so yeah. I mean, I don't think, like, that determines the entirety of what will happen is kind of the the point that that that I'm on. It's, like, a more difficult job, of course, after the fact, but it's something that I think is worthwhile kind of pursuing. So, like, I kind of like I have, like, a couple of influence influences, I think, with this. Like, one, I really like, Donna Haraway's, Cyborg Manifesto. She's, like, a feminist, writer, and she talks about how, basically, like, technology is not, or say, like, faithful to its creators or to its parents oftentimes, that you can take it and use it for something else, which is, like, what hap if you I don't know. You did a PhD in history of technology. I imagine so many things that were built for one thing ended up, like, not being the thing that it was used for. Yeah. Your example of the drum machine was really good. I like that. Yeah. So I think this is sometimes lost. Like, when it comes to crypto for me, this is, like, the, like, I I very crudely try to separate, people, one side as, like, the hype men, the crypto hype men, and the other side as, like, the critic, the hype men being, like, this is gonna change the world. Do it. Let's go. And then the other one being, like, this is all stupid. Don't do it. And stay away from it. And I guess I'm trying to use, like, you know, thinking about models and maps as, like, a way to be nuanced in between these two kind of, like, very hardcore positions, I feel, so that we can find the the cracks in both the cracks in the ways that, like, the hype men are explaining it, because I feel that the critics, they kind of, like, are reacting to just the way that hype men kind of explain it to them. And then you kind of, like, lose out on a lot of, like, potentially,

Well, I was gonna transition. I I I was gonna agree. Yes. Okay. So, so

Yeah. Maybe, like, reactive is, it would be the right ones. But yeah. No. I think, like, I think Elizabeth Warren is, like, the obvious kind of, like, person in in all of this. The banking reformer. Yeah. I mean, I think it's, like, a very I think it's a world view about, like, I mean, just a lot of trust in the status quo and in institutions themselves and that, like, it's a very much, like, we can fix it from the inside belief, which, I mean, in some cases, maybe you can and, you know, go for it. But I think it's this kind of very limiting view of kind of like only thinking of politics as, like, electoralism, I think, is is a big aspect of it. Like, thinking of being presented with the the system and, like, a map of the system usually being that being, like, the main institutions for electoralism is a big is a big one. Yeah. Speaking of mistaking the map for the territory. Right? Yeah. And so, like, I think that there is this like, people and it's, a difficult thing, I think, for a lot of people to wrap their heads around that, like, to think outside of these institutions in ways of, like in order to create influence or power, like, doesn't have to go through these institutional pathways. And that may be scary for some to do that, and it may I mean, there's just a lot of, of course, brainwashing is the right way word, but, like, thinking that anybody who does try to do that is, like, some crazy anarchist who wants to destroy the world and, you know, is it, like, Joker or something like that? But there's, like, plenty of, like, instances in history where that was the way that people changed the world and interacted with it. You know? Like, I think, you know, the way that democracy has manifested itself today, especially just, like, in The US and in Europe and as well in the West, it is kind of like a, democracy has become a kind of, like, justification machine for the status quo That, like, oh, you, you know, you elected you tried and you voted really hard, but sorry. You can't do anything about it. Next time, wait another four or five years. And I don't know. I think I think it has a lot to do with, yeah, thinking thinking in in this type of map of the world, I guess.

there is. It's a very complex game at the same time. Like, like, for me, I like to understand politics as, like, like, all politics is a, is coalition politics that, like, it's usually, I mean, unless you have, like, real, like, a huge base that you're able to mobilize in order to make change where you have, like, the majority of the population. Usually, if you have that, it's because you have a coalition of different groups. Like, you you usually, you can't you can't make the change that you want to do without it. And I don't know. I think of, like, you know, I feel like, Yanis Varoufakis was the minister of finance in Greece during, like, the Greek, crisis. And, like, he was giving, you know I mean, he's a Marxist giving, like, recommendations for policy on what to do, like, to fight against, like, the austerity being posed by the ECB and and everyone else. And, like, like, libertarians loved him. You know, like, American libertarians loved Yanis Varoufakis because, like, they were actually find common ground. Yeah. It's like I'm reading a book right now. Like, they were able to find common ground on kind of, like, their hatred for certain types of financial or, like, the ways in which certain financial institutions have been playing the game because libertarians have this certain, I don't know, like, fairness in financial markets as, like, a as, like, a big thing. And so, like, I think there is there's a space to play in there. Of course, it's just, like, a very it's a complex one, and it's a one that requires politics. Like, it requires, like, having, you know, relationships with people that you, like, don't necessarily agree with on everything. Because to find enough people who agree with you on everything is just, like, to me a silly game to play. Yeah.

Yeah. I I agree with the criticism. I think it's it's a tough one, but, ultimately, the thing that does probably need to happen is just, like, engaging with the communities that you are wanting to, like, build the technology for the most. Like, I mean, it's pretty common, you know, even, I don't know. I've done I've done a lot of, like, project, you know, technological project management or something, like, in corporate spaces. And even they, like, you know, you you do, like, surveys or, like, whatever. You understand, like, the thing they're trying to do. Like, it's a basic thing in, like, anthropology that you, like, you know, find identify, like, the group of people that you want to identify and, like, understand, like, use use that type of framework to understand, like, maybe the problems that they're facing and whatever else. A big also, I think one of the biggest obstacles though is that, like, technical education is very low in, like, a lot of the world that we don't like, it's not common knowledge how the Internet works, but everybody is using it all the time. But nobody is just like it's just like a little magic box that, like, you know, gives you the the text or whatever that that you want to see that your friend sent you. And this and I think this has been on purpose. Like, it's been created to be this, like, almost seemingly that it requires, like, years of intense study in order to understand, like, the basic things of how this stuff works, when it ever like, it like, some, like, some type of, like, I guess, reform, you can call it, that I think would be interesting to have. I think that would change this a lot is is if, you know, as, you know, as part of the education system, you, like, understood you are taught, like, how these things work. And that's one thing that I think the kinda like the left accelerationists and, like, other types of, I guess, left wing movements that I've tried to be more open to the use of, like, digital technologies have kind of kind of misses that they do use a lot of, like they tend to recreate them, like, the technical jargon that they're, like you know, because they're trying to, like they're understanding the the technology on the tech the original creators technologists, like, their own turf, I think. And we're not really doing much of an effort to make it, like, you know, a mass education program and how this shit works and and why it needs to be changed. And, like like, I think there is this kind of, like, paternalism of, like, well, we can't really they can't understand it because it's too difficult or something like that, whatever. I think, if I don't know. I've just found that if you sit someone down and they're willing to learn and want to participate or whatever else, they are willing to to learn about it, and and that can go a long way in, like, like, creating them the framework for how they, interact with their with their apps or whatever else. So, yeah, there's I've said a couple of things there.

Yeah. Sure. So this might be an unfair question to ask you. I'm gonna ask you it anyhow. But I think it's probably impossible to predict, but I'm just kinda curious what your view is on what, like, what do you think, like, the the sort of, like, socialist endgame is for incorporating blockchain technology into society? So, like, let's fast forward ten, twenty five, fifty, hundred years, however long. All the breaks go in the direction of the left, where are we? Are we still living in a society, like, similar today, but the blockchain is occasionally used for, mutual aid and co ops, or is it, like, all of society full on on the blockchain or, like, I'm just On chain socialism. Yeah. On chain gay communist socialism or whatever. Yes. I'm just kinda curious, like, what your, what your projection is assuming the best.

I I mean, like, for me, it's, I to be this like, when it comes to socialism, like, we could have had socialism without blockchain for sure. Like, I think that can exist. Like, I don't think it's like we need to have, like, the block. We need to have a cryptocurrency to make socialism. Like, I think that's kinda like a silly idea.

Or maybe not like socialism per se, but just sort of like it it all moves in the direction of sort of like leftist,

whatever. As far as you mean, like, starting from now, like, what would be the influence or what would what would ideally would like to see happen? Yeah. Maybe

framing it less in the the context of, like, socialism or leftism, but just, like, if the the breaks all move in the direction that you'd like it to move into Alright. In fifty, hundred, however many years. Like, what do you what do you sort of view as the end game?

I mean, the end game is socialism. But, I think that, I don't know. One time, I wrote, like, a big list of, like, things that I wish existed that that people could, could do. But I mean, I think it's more about, like, because for me, I think, like, we're I really hate saying this, but, like, we're really early that, because there hasn't been very much, like, experimentation with, like, specifically this technology, with a, you know, progressive lens on it or a socialist lens on it. So and I think part of that I mean, there's a lot of reasons for that. One is because of all the libertarians in this space. Like, socialists generally rejecting it in a lot of ways, socialists never having money, and, like, you know, a lot of these types of things that have been, like, huge obstacles to to making that happen. But, I mean, ideally, I would love to see just, like I mean, the biggest thing is, like, a whole lot less reliance on venture capital and, like, the idea of capital in itself, generally. Like, to me, like, a post capitalism, it means that we are less reliant on capital as, like, a social institution for how we kind of reproduce ourselves and, like, the things in the world, which means that, you know, people are just not doing things solely for, like, the profit motive. And that's a really hard problem to solve because, like, cryptocurrencies are so monetized, and, like, the main reason, like, 90% of people buy it generally is to speculate and to make money off of it. So it's, like, it's it's difficult. But I think, like and and there is, I think, another problem to solve as well is that, like, the consensus mechanisms of basically every blockchain is based on a profit motive. Like, economic incentivization is just, like, profit. It's like we're reliant. So, like, I think what why blockchains, work is because they comply with kind of, like, the the expectations of capitalism of, like, you are accumulating capital and that the world is moving forward because of that. Again, another very difficult problem, to solve, like, whether or not we need, like, the consensus mechanism should be changed to something that doesn't allow that, but also still have the same kind of safety and security guarantees that it that it gives us. Maybe that means that it's, like, like, not a blockchain and is, like, some other type of distributed ledger. Could be. I think just blockchains are the ones that the the, like, kind of infrastructure that has become the most popular and the most, like, interesting people developing on it, and that's why, like, I spend so much time looking at it and thinking about it. But I do think that there are there is, like, a, like, a non insignificant chance that, like, we need to rethink, like, blockchains themselves, and maybe that means that they are not blockchains anymore, and, you know, are able to do the things that they do without necessarily relying on capital. So those are those are a lot of things. And so, like, I and I think part of so, like, getting rid of venture capital basically means that there is funding available for people to do work that's important, that doesn't involve making a deal with the devil. I think that's a huge part. Yeah. Cool.

Follow-up question to all that. It sounds like you're less a blockchain radical and more of a decentralized ledger technology radical.

Maybe, but it doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

Right. Like so I I guess on that note, are there any DLTs that aren't, Ethereum that you're excited about that might,

yeah. That are that are not Ethereum or not Blockchain or something like that? Yeah. I guess, like, aren't Ethereum, aren't

Bitcoin, like, me I guess, the definition of blockchain is a little loose, but I guess, I'm just curious if there are any technologies in the in the in the the rough family of blockchains or DLTs that you think, sort of conform to what you're describing?

Yeah. So I mean, the one of the last chapters is compares a couple of, like, alternatives since the book is pretty, like, I don't know, 90% of examples are on, like, Ethereum or something like that. But I do look in like, I think I mean, Cosmos is a really interesting, like, ecosystem in itself just because of how they've thought very differently about how the different chains relate to one another. But it's still I mean, it's still based on capital. No doubt. Holochain is another one that I think is interesting that doesn't, doesn't have this type of consensus mechanism. I think one of the things that I'm waiting for from Holochain at the moment, though, is, like, just more use and more production. Like, I like you know, I've I've spoken to, like, the founders before, and I like I think a lot of their ideas are really interesting, even though they, like, really don't describe themselves as socialists or whatever. But I do think that there are some things that they say that are that are really interesting that, like, I'm interested to see what the you know, what's going to come out of it. And, like, I'm kind of, like for me, I'm just kinda, like, waiting and observing and seeing, like, what is coming out, and keeping track with those. But Holochain is one of those things that I'm like I would like to see, like, do more and and succeed, but we'll see.

I love hearing that from you because I mean, I'm just being at CoinDesk for so long and seeing that,

that? Very, very carefully. I mean, it's a it's a really it's a that's a really hard problem. I think it's kind of like the ultimate, one of the ultimate problems that needs to be solved is, like, I go back to this a lot, but, like, be like, living within capitalism but also working against it is, like, not easy thing to do. And, like, you know, one of the things another kind of idea that, like, Deloze gets into is, like, the how capital, in one hand, deterritorializes things. Like, capital has deterritorialized, like, preexisting social structures that used to be the thing that, like, people relied on for help or support or whatever else. That's been destroyed while at the same time re territorializing or then creating new types of social structures that now we're dependent on. So, like, I kind of just use the the, like, kind of metaphor of, like, a double edged sword that, like, on one end you are you are removing and on the other end, you're always adding. And that's, like, a difficult it's a difficult thing to, like, plan everything out and for it to happen exactly as you intended, I think. But, like, it's something worth doing. It's I don't know if, like, of course yeah. I don't know if you just, like, ask a capitalist, like, hey. Can you please, like, give us money and not expect returns? Like, it's, like, very unlikely they're going to do it a lot of the time. And but I think if you are in a situation where you're lucky enough to, like, convince them to give you a bunch of money, I think it's kind of it's imperative to try to be that, I guess, to find ways to deterritorialize capital itself and and reterritorialize other things. So I mean, like, I think to me, this is kind of, like, also the essence of, like, other concepts, like, dual power or something like that. That there has to be, like, this interaction with the world as it exists and as well as, like, creation of of the new in order to, like, supplant it or to create, you know, to overcome it. And, yeah, so I think I think it's it's very context specific, of course, and, like, what thing is actually that you are trying to pursue. But I think those are it's kind of like the I think, people need to be more comfortable generally in thinking about contradictions or, like, like, acknowledging the contradictions of the things that they may be doing and, like, kind of working through those things, because, like, yeah. The world is full of contradiction and it's, like, not an easy thing to kind of get over. So I think at least being aware of it, if you're the one trying to build this stuff and, like, being honest with yourself is is part of it.

I I have a question if that's cool. I, we've we've talked about venture capitalism and how the legacy models and narratives present an obstacle to thinking about how the tech can be used. But what what I found is some of the loudest voices for socialist concepts are actually venture capitalists. Like, Legion has a podcast called Means of Creation, and has talked about creator owned platforms, universal creator income, like, things that sound on the surface actually very leftist, but it's now

Well, I also wanted to tie into your point about coalition building. So, like, all politics are about building a coalition. So if if some radical ideas are shared with venture capitalists, do you see a path of building a coalition with VCs somehow? Is there a way to thread that needle? And also just what do you think about the co opting of radical language by people that are at the end of the day just trying to get a return on capital.

Yeah. I mean, it's it's a tough problem as well. Like, yeah. It's it's not surprising that language gets co opted, in my in my opinion. Like, it's not it's not something that I think we can really just prevent. Like, tell them, no. You can't do that. Don't do it. That it's not going to happen. Like, Nazism is the cooptation of socialism through a nationalist lens. Like, the reason the Nazi party was created was because, like, socialism was on the rise, and there was a need to kind of, to co opt that movement and turn it into a fascist one. So, like, this I think this is, like, constantly going to happen. Like, there is always this, like, battle back and forth and, like, I don't yeah. It's it's hard because I think if you purely think of things as, like, there are two sides and we're each pushing, like, back and forth, like, between one another and whoever's pushing hardest is, like, gonna get more and more. Like, I don't think that's how it works. It's, like, a lot more multifaceted and, like, you know, there is, like, this, now you probably used some metaphor of, like, Asian philosophy about, like, moving with the water or something like that. Like, finding ways to, kind of, acknowledge that this is a possibility, that this can happen, and how to, I guess, mitigate it because, like, you can't completely defend yourself from, like, all these things. Like, I know of people who are working on specific projects who, like, believe like, who are taking venture capital, for example, and they are trying to find ways in which that, like, kind of reduce their power or their influence over them. Right now, I'm kind of in the phase of, like, waiting to see what they do and how that that pans out. Right now, like, I'm more on the side personally of like, I personally won't wouldn't do a project that accepts venture capital because that's not the thing that I want to do. So, I mean, yeah, to me, it's it's kind of like that's what I mean, neoliberalism over the past several decades has been very good at. It's like, with especially technology and big tech, like, there was a pretty good amount of time where, like, people were thinking, like, Google is this big progressive force that's going to change world for better. Like, I remember people thinking, like, Elon Musk was, like, the leftist billionaire because he's making electric cars or some shit, which is, like, obviously now is, like, very stupid, but that was, like, for a long time that's, like, been happening. And it it had like, I understand, like, kind of people being a bit traumatized or a bit, like, yeah, fed up with that type of thing. It's a very it's a diff like, we're in conditions not of our choosing and, like, it's a difficult game to play. To choose to want to, like, make different to make radically different new ways of being and structures is to accept, like, a pretty big task in the first place. And I think that kind of has to be acknowledged that, like, you know, there are you you can, of course, come up and make decisions on what is a good way or a bad way of doing it. But I think there is, like, a a space that you can play to where people can try different strategies because I don't think we've really figured out what is the way to kind of, like, move forward on all these things. I still think we're really at a point that we're we're in need of, like, experimentation, in this because, I don't know, we we haven't figured out the thing that's, like, rapidly creating the thing that we want, I guess.

very theoretical at this point, application of blockchain through certain rights management things. No. I I really like what you said, but, one of the things that part of this question, to acknowledge, I think, is that oftentimes it's phrased as in how can we prevent the right from co opting us? And, like, that's kind of, like, the framework that's generally used without acknowledging that, like, I don't know, like, Marx was he co opted, like, right wing philosophy. Like, Hegel was not a leftist. Like, David Ricardo and Adam Smith were not leftist, you know, like, they were, like, the they are, like, the liberal philosophers who, like, then ended up greatly influencing the way that we think about capitalism today. And he basically co opted the use of their theorems, of their labor theory of value, and used it and applied it in a different way to create what ultimately became, like, you know, Marxist socialism at least. And so, like, there is, like, there is also a history of the left being able to do that as well that I feel like we we kind of forgotten or, like, don't do very much. So, yeah, I don't know. That's that's something that I would that I would keep in mind as well. It's, of course, like, it it it requires, like, critical thinking in order to do that. It's not like, you know, an easy thing to do at the same time.

on that? So you're saying, like, what are, like, influences, you mean, that are moving towards a socialism on the blockchain? Is that kind of what you're thinking?

Right. No. I think, this, I don't know, might be an unpopular opinion, but I do think that there is there is, like, a really interesting place to play potentially with, like, partnering with certain governments or, like, local municipalities to use the technology in a way that, like, helps govern already existing, like, shared resources in a particular, locality. I think that would be a very fruitful place and, like, a very immediate thing. Of course, it is sort of like, we haven't found yet, I don't know just I don't know if there are, like, so many I know of a couple of projects that have kind of done this, but some of them are kind of like vaporware a lot of the time. But, yeah, I think being like, I'm not afraid to say that it is interesting to, like, partner with governments to do this type of thing, and should be considered a lot more just because it's already a preexisting institution that has access to, like, all these people and who, like, are reliant on them for a lot of their services. So, no, I think that's, like, one place to play. Like, one of the one of my, like, articles that I wrote, quite a while in, like, beginning of the of the pandemic was, like, how to because in in the beginning of the pandemic, everybody was afraid of being, kicked out of their of their homes and apartments because they were not working, and their landlord was gonna kick them out if they didn't pay rent. And this was happening at, like, a massive scale. And so, like, for me, one of the thing like, thought experiments I had at that point is, like, how to, how to use, like, blockchains to kind of, like, create a different type of relationship with housing, for example. So I just you know, it's called the housing for all token or something like that, where the token is representation of a political right to housing. So, like, you could use the token to, based on, you know, what your, like, particular conditions are at that moment, use your token to purchase a house, or not really purchase a house. It gives you the rights to use the house. So So it's like a different relationship with property that you don't need to buy a house in order to live in it or rent a house to live in it. The housing is kind of held in commons in the public, and you use the token as just a system of allocating, like, who is able to, live in which particular apartment or house because and at the same time, you can, I think, pretty easily programmatically put in, like, if this is a single mom or something like that with, with kids, their their token would give them a right to a house with more rooms for their children to play in versus, I don't know, someone who's, like, a single guy who doesn't need that much space? So I think that's, like that is decommoditizing, housing and relying less on the markets and is something that, like, I think in a world where we aren't so, like, reliant on free markets could be possible or utilizing kind of, like, public housing already existing public housing systems around the world, I think is, like, one thing that I'm that I've thought about that I think is is interesting. How do you think the, like, government welfare

Quite different. I mean, the logic in a lot of welfare systems is very, like, me it's I mean, there's means testing in a way that is, like, quite, like, needlessly punitive, I guess. That a lot of in order to get welfare, especially in The US, like, you have you have the amount of paperwork that you have to give them before you're even able to get anything is, like, pretty monstrous. It's sort of, like, just kinda, like, punishing people for being poor. Like, they're already in a bad situation, and then, like, also you want to, like they have to come in, you know, once a week for, like, a drug test or whatever else, like, that's taking away time for them to be able to, like, care for their families or to, like, find a job or whatever else. I think it's, quite different. It's just, like, yeah. It depends on, like, the logic that's embedded inside of it. Because what is another great fear of mine, actually, is that blockchains do get used by, existing public institutions, but in the logic of the already existing system, that's quite punitive. So, yeah, I hope that answers this question.

I guess to start off, I I would say I like what you said about working with existing institutions because you you talk a lot about this parallelism, right, with these new structures. But I'd be curious to know what your thoughts on of crisis playing a role in this shift. If you look at Bitcoin, you know, this can't this was spun out of a crisis, right, a banking crisis. So it was it was a direct response to that. And so, yeah, I'm and and and to to to the sort of original, like, Delusion point, when you're doing this kind of schizo analytic framework, with rhizomes and the systems and and and how how you how how you present them, you know, what kind of prevents not your own personal politics, but politics in general devolving into essentially being being a pirate. Right? Like, you're you're kind of, riding you're building the ship with, you know, the small group, that you've coalesced, and you you guys are just trying to get through the storm. So I I I wanna contrast that with sort of the conventional, you know, notion of socialism as, you know, a movement a real collectivist movement. So

So into your to your earlier points about crisis and the role of crisis, I think yeah. What what brought about neoliberalism was the crisis, like, in the seventies of, like, stagflation. Like, that was ultimately, like, the moment when things, like, really shifted. The entire world was, like, under a crisis and people were just, like, looking for new ideas and the one that already existed was neoliberalism. There's already a huge movement. I mean, not a movement, but, like, a lot of money behind this type of thinking of, like, free market fundamentalism that began way before, you know, 1970 whatever it was, whenever it started to to come up. And so, like, I think there is At least the meme is, 1972. Right? Yeah. Yeah. But, yeah. I mean, like, it's it's a so, like, I think it was, like, Naomi Klein or, like, shock doctrine. I think she wrote a lot about this that, like, in moments of crisis that it's, like, used as a point whenever, like, nobody's kind of, like, able to pay attention or looking for, like, massive changes to happen, a lot of times for the worse, in the benefit of, like, those who already have a lot. And that's how, like, we tend to have really big changes in in the world. It's, like, after these crises, like, so I think considering that, I think that means sort of, acknowledging that there's a need to, like, build collect like, a collective of sorts, a movement of sorts before the crisis happens because by the time the crisis happens, it's too late. Like, you're not you're not ready for what's happening. Like, if there was some sort of greater movement before Occupy Wall Street that was more organized and more, you know, whatever, it probably would have been a lot more successful than than it has been or than than it was, even though it was a well intentioned, you know, people were angry. But it's just, like, constant thing where there is this reaction to to crises happening. So I think that there is just, like, yeah. The need to build infrastructure before before the crisis and to so that you're ready for whenever the crisis does happen because, I mean, if

you I mean, just capitalism just, like, guarantees crises. That's, like, par for the course. Yeah. Yeah. So so, like, like, I guess that's kind of why I was going into the whole schizo analysis. Right? Because I wanna kind of pick your brain about what your teleological view is of this. Right? Like, is it that at at the there will be a crisis and then, you know, society sort of remade in this new image? Or is this something to help not promote the status quo, right, but is part of is a mechanism of stability. Right? So so so so, you know, is this socialism, a stabilizing, you know, equalizing force? Or is this socialism something that arises after the crisis, right, when, you know, there are these tools lying around for others to pick up and and and and continue? And so I guess that that's sort of my my my main,

yeah, point. Yeah. Because I'm not sure. I mean, I'm not like, I wouldn't be able to make the prediction on that, I guess. I'm more interested to just see, like, I don't know what works, essentially. Like, I don't it and it's, for me, still hard to say how exactly that will that will pan out.

All of them are lower than I would like them to be. It's really hard to say. I mean, I think it has it has changed interestingly over the years. Like, I don't know. I was at ETH Barcelona a couple of weeks ago, and there were, like, a surprising amount of people who at least consider themselves to be on the left that I was able to meet or find, I don't know, just kind of like by accident, I guess. I do remember, like, when I lived I lived in New York for a year when I was supposed to get into stuff, and I would go to, like, these crypto events and it would be, like, I mean, pretty horrible, like, the type of, like, politics a lot of the people were espousing. It's still the case a lot of the time, the politics that people are espousing, no doubt. But there has been, like, a growth in, like, these pockets, I think, of people who are not thinking about it in in that way. So yeah. And I do think I mean, I don't know. My impression talking to women at some of these conferences is that they do think usually, they're ones who come from, like, traditional tech or traditional, finance or something like that. Like, I've heard that they've said that there are more women at crypto things than at the traditional whatever financial tech things that they would normally go to. I can't really confirm that necessarily. And, and I guess there are I don't know. At least at least in Europe, the places that I've been to, I've met quite a few people who come from a lot of the time I mean, there's a lot of people from, like, South America who are building that I've probably met quite a few. But, yeah, ultimately, there needs to be more or there should be more, I think. That's really hard to say. I think but the thing is that, like, a lot of people don't label themselves. They don't say like, they don't want to be labeled to be a certain thing. And I get that. I understand it. I've sort of taken on the horrible duty of labeling myself, who I am and just being honest with it because I feel fairly confident in it and, like, willing to engage in discussion about it, and I don't mind it. But I think a lot of people don't have a coherent politics, generally. And that's not, like, meaning I'm not saying, like, like, they're dumb or whatever because they have that. It's just that we don't it's not like everybody takes the insane amount of time it takes to, like, read whatever big political theory books to then say, like, oh, yes. I am this, and I can defend all of my positions for everything all the time because it's, like, a weird sort of responsibility to put on yourself, you know. So it's it's hard to say. I think a lot there are a lot of people who have, like, progressive tendencies and, like, have kind of, like, good intentions and wanting to create things that are more egalitarian and democratic and whatever else, but that they don't necessarily put it under the bucket of a particular political name is what I find most often.

Yeah. I have to agree with that. That tends to be missed by a lot of critics.

If you've bought, like, the $30 ticket, then I will sign a book for you and give it to you. I have the box down right there. We can do that right now, more or less. But yeah. And then if you if you didn't, I don't know. If you have $20, I'll give you a book. And then, just for the purpose of the recording,

No. Please buy the book.