Oh, thank you for that introduction. That that summed up pretty well. I think, yeah, I could talk about how I got into crypto. Around, what was it, November 2020, a friend of mine kinda got me into Coinbase, said, hey. It's kinda things are kinda bullish right now. Check it out. And so I just experimented around with buying things on Coinbase, buying various coins, doing, you know, the the free quizzes that are earned you a few crypto here and there. But, I definitely was not, like, eloquent in the language of blockchain training crypto at that time. That took like, I'm still kind of building my eloquence, but that took a long time.

like, just play around, curious, maybe make a little bit of money, see what happens? Yeah. It's definitely a play around type of thing. But I guess, you know, despite and, you know, I I guess, you know, I'm on the left, so I've been surrounded by all these kinda, like, leftist voices. And, you know, what I was hearing for the most part at the time were kinda like these easy dunks and generalizations that, oh, blockchain is bad for the environment. Oh, crypto is a Ponzi scheme. You know, the easy dunks and kinda taking one bad example of crypto and blockchain and trying to make it the whole. And hearing that, I kind of was ambivalent for a while. Like, oh, should I be into this? Should I not be into this? But, I mean while I was playing around. But I guess it was hard for me to kind of, you know, discount the aspect of decentralization. You know, what I still while I was still trying to figure out what exactly that meant, I was like, you know, being on the left and believing in horizontal power structures and not believing in concentrations of power. This, you know, blockchain's emphasis on decentralization, I don't think that's worth discounting. I wanna do a little research more research on this. Then I think it was around, like, March or April 2021, I had been doing, like, kind of volunteer work with Amplitude, you know, the kinda cons yeah. Considered a platform cooperative that was cofounded by Austin Roby, now with MetaLabel. And

Yes. Yes. Yes. And friend of mine too. And kind of he around March, April 2021 was around when he was starting to get more into crypto and web three. And he was thinking, like, with ample of experimenting with, you know, NFT technology and that sort of thing. And he said, Eli, can you just, do a little research just on what crypto is, what blockchain is, because, you know, there are a lot of members of Ampled who maybe are a little hesitant about blockchain as a useful technology. And kind of when he set me on giving the task to do this whole research thing, that that would help me better articulate, like, oh, what blockchain is, what blockchain isn't, learning about, you know, proof of work, proof of stake. Mainly that, mainly the validation mechanisms. And, also, around the same time, I was doing you know, I was writing thinking of piece ideas for the Radical Exchange Foundation, kind of the vehicle behind quadratic voting and quadratic funding, big mechanisms in, like, kind of the blockchain,

Oh, I before then I was doing, like, some contracting work for them, but then also I was writing contributing some essays and, or working on contributing some essays. And I guess, you know, by being immersed in radical exchange, but then also kind of learning alongside Austin and more about web three stuff, you know, recognizing that quadratic voting and quadratic funding were so prevalent within the blockchain space and that these were kind of, like, you know, cutting edge mechanisms for democracy that are a little better than current mechanisms for democracy in, you know, the sort of meat space. Like, the fact that blockchain people were taking up these, like, very good ways to get people to participate in democracy that kind of, you know, helped strengthen my position that, like, you know, okay. You know, blockchain is worth looking deeper into, and perhaps there's, like, you know, a leftist angle into blockchain. And I could also like, I could give a rundown of, like, you know, quadratic funding and quadratic voting and the kind of existing mechanisms they're better than. So quadratic voting, I think of it as, like, you know, a better version of ranked choice voting. You know, you got ranked choice voting now in New York City, but then I think all of the state of Maine has it. I believe San Francisco also has it too and some other number of other jurisdictions in The United States and also outside of The United States. But, basically, with ranked choice voting in an election, you can you know, per its name, you could rank more than one candidate. It helps, you know, people who may not necessarily resonate if there's, like, two options, two candidates for an election. You know, ranked choice voting gives you more options for where your vote can possibly go. If you rank, you know, if you have a numb you can rank your number one choice for a candidate, but then if they kind of get eliminated during the pro during the process of ranked choice voting, then your vote could go to your number two candidate. Either way, whereas opposed to, you know, in a election where your vote can only you can only select one candidate. If your candidate loses, then your vote doesn't matter. But then, you know, the problem with ranked choice voting is, you know, there's the chance that you rank a bunch of candidates that got eliminated, and, ultimately, your vote doesn't count. And, also, as a matter of, you know, ranking, the you know, with ranked choice voting, you could rank your ballot, but you're not able to rank your vote, meaning you're not able to, like, divide your vote up to measure, oh, maybe you feel 70% sort of passion for one candidate, 20% passion for another candidate, and 10% passion for another candidate. Why can't then 70% of your vote go to the first candidate, 20% to the second, and 10% to the third? And so, you know, quadratic voting is, like I said, the better version of ranked choice voting, because you can divide up your vote. And And then there's the whole mechanism of voice credits to subvotes that forces you to carefully consider how you want to spread out those subvotes. So at Radical Exchange, I wrote a piece, about how, you know, well, New York City just passed ranked choice voting, and all these all you know, the public was very into it despite critics bashing ranked choice voting as, you know, supposedly, it, enables demagoguery. That that that was kind of like a yeah. Though a lot of critics of ranked choice voting, especially in the pages of, like, the Wall Street Journal, you know, Anything that, you know, enables more democracy is gonna, you know, you know, as now with, like, you know yeah. Populism. Yeah. Oh, yeah. It's populism, out of control, and populism is always Trump. So therefore, ranked choice voting is bad. But, where was I? Yeah. So I wrote a piece, you know, what if New York City replaced its, ranked choice voting elections with quadratic voting? But, and then, yeah, I'll then get to quad quadratic fund funding is, like, a better version of public matching funds, which, again, New York City has a program for. So in New York City, if you're a New Yorker and, you want to send a small dollar grassroots donation to a local candidate I forget their specific, like, range of, like, it has to be this has to be at least this many dollars, but it can't go over that many dollars. But, anyways, if you send a small dollar donation to a candidate, local candidate in New York City, and you're a New Yorker, the city will, like with public dollars or, like, public tax dollars that have been set aside will match your donation. I think it's, like, $8 for every $1 of your donation. So I think, you know, I think, yeah, if you send, like, a $25 donation to a candidate, the City Of New York will match it at, like, whatever eight times 25 is. That's, that's already something that happens in New York City. It's already something that happens. It's been a thing since the late nineteen seventies. And it's funny. The impetus for that program was to counter corruption because there were many local candidates who were, you know, in the pockets of I mean, it's still a thing. Candidates in the pockets of large corporate corporations and private developers, and their campaigns were getting subsidized by those, you know, private entities. And, you know, rather than banning those entities outright, the public matching funds is essentially a market solution for, like, you know, a socialized program for funding politicians from the city under the guise of anti corruption. When the program passed, it was supported by, you know, not just Democrats, but Republicans. And as, you know, an anti corporate, anti corruption measure. But then, yeah, when you look at it, it's a socialized program. The city is funding politicians to run for office and to run grassroots campaigns rather than rely on private donors and corporations. So, yeah, that's what fascinated me is that, you know, just the aspect that, you know, you could have this program, this public program with huge bipartisan support that is essentially, you know, kind of socialism in a way. But the problem with public matching funds is that it's a hard ratio. $8 from the city for every $1 from you, the voter constituent New Yorker. And because it's a hard ratio, it is kind of vulnerable to be being taken advantage of. So if you're like a local politician running for office, And let's say you appeal to a handful of wealthy donors. Your handful of wealthy donors could potentially get you, the candidate, more matched dollars from the city versus another candidate who appeals to, you know, a large swath of it's a large swath. A very large swath. A very large A lot of money. A bunch of people forming a large sloth. No. If you're another candidate who appear appeals to a large swath of, like, working class donors The working class slots. Who yeah. Yeah. And that, you know, presumably, the base of many working class donors may not be able to donate as much as, you know, a small contingency of the wealthy donors, then, you know, you could have more donors doesn't mess necessarily mean you get more dollars. It seems like that that that solution didn't solve really anything. Well, no. It's I mean Very low. Obviously, you know, it it lacked outright banning corporate donors and outright you know? Because I think there's so many legal loopholes and just roundabout things that enable corporate donations and private involvement in politics. So it's like, alright. Rather than, you know, going through the hassle of banning these things outright, here's the market solution of, you know, the socialized market solution of public matching funds. But, anyways yeah. So quadratic funding, a better version of public matching funds because, you know, the matching ratio of quadratic funding is self adjusting. If you get more donors, you get more dollars. Rather than you get more dollars, then you get more dollars. So, you know, quadratic funding and values, you know, how many people

But that yeah. I mean, yes. So, like, with those two radical exchange essays together, that kinda culminated in this piece I wrote for NoEMA where it was basically, like, a synthesis of those two essays where I was just like, New York City should have both a quadratic funding, public matching funds program, and a quadratic voting system for electing, you know, members to the city council. And I forgot to mention this detail. So in New York City, you know, ranked choice voting passed, like, over a year ago, and there was all this, you know, all of this, you know, these celebratory all the celebratory press coverage. Like, you know, oh, New York City now has ranked choice voting, this really awesome new system for voting, kind of giving the impression that, oh, this is the first time New York City ever had ranked choice voting, which is is false. New York City had ranked choice voting in the nineteen thirties and into the nineteen forties. And not only that, but it had a much more progressive version of ranked choice voting in the nineteen thirties and the nineteen forties, which was that, in the current iteration, ranked choice of, you know, ranked choice voting in New York City, there are still voter districts. So single winner voting districts where there's one council member per voting district, and the ranked choice voting was, you know, used in each of those districts. Whereas in the nineteen thirties and nineteen forties, ranked choice voting was used to elect multiple council members at once because ranked choice voting was borough wide. So Queens, borough wide, multi winner ranked choice voting. Brooklyn, multi winner, borough wide ranked choice voting. There's a form the so the form right now is single winner. The form in the nineteen thirties was multi winner. And the way that the logistic duly worked is that a candidate had to get over, I think, it was 75,000 votes to win a seat. And because of the multi winner format, that enabled better kind of third party coalition forming where, like, you know, socialists and communists could form a coalition together, run a very strong ground game going across the borough saying, hey, New Yorkers or people from Queens, people from Brooklyn, people in Manhattan. We as kind of a block of communists and socialists will effectively represent your interests on the city council. So rank us all towards the top of your ballot so we can get elected. And that's what happened. A bunch of socialists and communists got elected to New York City's Council in the nineteen thirties. And the reason also, the reason that, you know, multi winner ranked choice voting was a thing in the first place in New York City was, again, account like, a measure against corruption in city politics. Democrats had a super majority on the city council. You know, they were taking bribes and, you know, get and being, you know, able to be ineffective and do nothing on the job because they just controlled the whole city council. And but what hap and then in response to corruption scandals in the nineteen thirties, FDR, who was governor of New York at the time, I think he set up it was like a commission saying, hey. Let's try to think of a solution for how to counter this democratic corruption in New York City. And so kind of as a sort of populist coalition, Democrats who were not corrupt with Republicans and socialists and communists pushed for, multi winner rank choice voting. And, again, this was, you know, not exactly socialized, but, like, it was an anti corruption measure that ended up benefiting third party candidates, in other words, socialists and communists, who got elected to the council, who formed like, you know, they didn't get a get a majority, but they formed a significant enough caucus that Democrats on the council basically had to win them over to get anything done. Because if, you know, Democrats didn't win over socialists and communists to get things done, to get policies done, then that would have built nothing would have happened. That would have built a stronger case for electing more socialists and communists. And, you know, that would have been cool if that happened, if the Democrats continue to do nothing and make the case for even more socialists and communists, kind of bombard the council. But what did happen as a result is that, you know, the two big policies that pass at the time were sweeping rent control and, like, the first major government funded public housing project. And this was because of kind of a clever indirect policy, which was, you know, multi winner rank choice voting. And, ultimately, kind of, like, you know, at the end of the nineteen forties, it got overturned because that was during the time of the Red Scare and McCarthyism

And then and then the red scare. And then but then the other aspect of, like, kind of how it was just, like, you know, same old same old, you know, American politics, like, you know, squashing leftism was before multi winner ranked choice voting, Republicans had no influence on the city council. They kind of, you know, could put on the appearance of seeming like they were, you know, the kind of resistant minority holding Democrats accountable, but they never were able to actually do that. In practice, that was the socialists and communists. But then who helped kind of you know, essentially, it was a flipping of sides where, like, you know, the coalition that helped overturn, rank choice multi winner rank choice voting was, I guess, you know, democrats who saw an opportunity and republicans who, you know, kind of after multi winner ranked choice voting got overturned, the republicans kind of went right back to having no influence on the city council. So, yeah, it was just it was once again, you know, Democrats and Republicans going hard together in true bipartisan fashion against, leftism. So, yeah, I wanted to give that context because, yeah, what I write in my NoEMA essay and also in my radical exchange essays or may know I do it more in my NoEMA essay is that, you know, not only should quadratic voting replace ranked choice voting, but it should be multi winner quadratic voting. Because, you know, quadratic voting is most enticing when there are you can select multiple winners. You know, you don't wanna just you don't wanna just devote divide up your vote and then have single winner quadratic voting. You wanna be able to divide up your vote because you know that your vote will, like, influence the outcomes of multiple candidates. And I think if that was brought back and then if quadratic funding with matching funds became a reality, replacing the fixed ratio version, then that could lead to, you know, a significant like, that's the thing that would allow third parties to be a thing in America because it allows for, you know, coalition building, stronger ground game, and kind of as you know, in the sense of getting grassroots donations, it's a profitable thing that sustains, you know, the enterprise of a third party machine. So I I that's a long way from you asking me how I got into crypto. But I guess that's to say I got into crypto because I was fascinated with governance mechanisms that are prevalent in the crypto space. But my main my preoccupation is seeing kind of arguing how those governance mechanisms can be taken in into the meat space,

nonpartisan in a sense. Like, what I say in my Zura piece, it's like, you know so participatory budgeting, I guess, just puts simply is when, you know, citizens can take public dollars and put them towards funding things in their neighborhood that they need to survive. Good sidewalks, good transportation, frequent garbage collection. I don't mention this in my Zora piece, but I forget the name. There's an Instagram account that, you know, talks about that finds, like, you know, good free to use public like, not public, but good free to use bathrooms around New York City. But even what if participatory budgeting, you know, was used to fund clean Public bathrooms. You know, high clean public public bathrooms on every corner. Yeah. What like, you know Yeah. A democrat democrats would support that. Republicans would support that.

Yeah. Never seen. I I agree. I I would, yeah, disagree with Nathan's take entirely. Yeah. I I studied abroad in Oslo a few years ago and just all around Oslo. Awesome bathrooms. Terrific bathrooms.

Yeah. Participatory budgeting, it's so, again, New York City also has participatory budgeting. Yeah. Out of the city budget, the city council or the mayor and city council will set aside money for local citizens to put towards public goods in their Mhmm. Districts. Yeah. And that's I mentioned public goods because kind of the reason I got fascinated with, like, blockchain as it could intersect with participatory budgeting is because, you know, in the Web3 space, there's a lot of talk about public goods. You know? Public goods are good. That sort of thing. And the reason I, like, got so interested in this intersection of, like, you know, oh, participatory budgeting, you know, local democracy, that's the way, is because I like I feel I've, like, interpreted that literally. Like, I think, oh, when Ethereum people talk about public goods, they mean funding public parks and bathrooms and transportation. That's what they mean. Right? They keep saying public goods are good, but is that what they mean? And so I feel like that misunderstanding of what Ethereum people mean by public goods has sent me down this path of, like, oh, they mean that, you know, local citizens should be able to fully control participatory budgeting and have better parks and transportation and libraries. But even though now I've kind of come to understand that, like, public goods means, oh, open source projects on the Ethereum blockchain and, decentralized applications that are publicly, you know, viewable and anyone can participate in them. And I was like, oh, oh, that's that's what they meant by public goods. Well, anyways, I'll still that's what they mean. I'll continue down this kind of, you know, this lane that I'll just assume that the public goods on the blockchain means, you know, using blockchain technology to fund public goods in the public. So participatory budgeting in New York City, I think it occurs in most districts, but it was also, you know, passed I think pretty sure passed by de Blasio that it would just be, like, across all of New York City. And, it's so the end, to give context, what I say in my piece is that, you know, participatory budgeting is far from radical. It's a half measure, but it has nonetheless radicalized many people who have participated in it participated in participatory budgeting. And so the annual budget of New York City, I think, this past year was over $90,000,000,000. The budget that was set aside for participatory budgeting is $35,000,000. You know, 35,000,000 out of context is a nice sum of money. But when you're thinking about many districts in New York City that want to fund, you know, better basic infrastructure, like better lights on the sidewalk and sidewalks that are easy to walk on and such things like that. There's not a and then, you know, $35,000,000 divided amongst many districts for that. There isn't a lot of money left over to make, I guess, significant change. I mean, of course, you know, it definitely is like better than nothing. It certainly is better than nothing. But, you know, why not 1,000,000,000? Why not 10,000,000,000 set aside for participatory budgeting? Why is it wallowing in the millions? So in that sense, it's not exactly radical when you consider the billions and billions billions in the annual budget. But the kind of nitty gritty process of being able to, like, allocate dollars towards things that, like, materially affect you on a daily basis. Like, kind of seeing firsthand how democracy actually works, you know, not just voting a candidate into office to distantly in in a detached manner do the budgeting for you. But, actually, you being the person to allocate dollars, that has been a major impetus for people to get into, for New Yorkers to get into movements like becoming organizers for tenants' unions and facilitating

Yeah. That live around you and then use dollars to impact the people that live around you. You know? Like, it's a matter of, like, you know, yeah, you can yeah. Like, just like the dollars being in your hands, it's it's this kind of it's it leads to epiphanies. And, and then also just, like, even, I guess, you know, yeah, less activist y than, you know, being a tenant union organizer and being a mutual aid organizer. It just motivates people to, you know, have more faith in democracy, to show up to the ballot box more frequently than they might have might have beforehand.

Exactly. Yeah. And that you know, yeah. And the, you know, the tenant unions and the mutual aid are, you know, the extensions of radical action.

exalting sort of, like, objectivism or whatever health, you know, like, finally the strong get to inherit the world type of thing. I mean, I I relate just, like, kind of the proposals for most crypto cities being very kind of, like, myopic and self referential. Like, in those cases, decentralization is kind of involved in so much as, like, a blockchain is involved, and that blockchain is just, you know, whatever, decentralizing data and kind of, you know, whatever because of the technical mechanism of decentralized data, then, therefore, a city is decentralized. I just it's a very, like, kind of unconvincing logical jump that a lot of crypto people make. And, also, like, the big problem with, like, crypto people talking about cities is that they think blockchain and crypto have to be first and foremost even more important than the city itself. My thing is, like, you know, if you're if you wanna sell people on blockchain and crypto, like, it has to be secondary. Like, almost like you know, you you gotta kinda, like, restrain your zealotry and really foreground the needs of everyday people, which is why I say in my thing, you know, a full scale a proposal for full scale participatory budgeting, it's gotta center direct democracy first. Blockchain has to be like this kind of secondary, almost like boring component of it. Like, the more boring you make blockchain seem, the more convincing its utility will be. That's my that's my position.

like, civic work. Yeah. I'll and all it's I I like that you mentioned the word community because I get I think that word gets thrown around way too much in, like, Web three world, DAO world, where it's like, oh, we got these you know, DAOs talk about their communities, which is just, like, whoever's on the Discord server. And it's just the way that the word token gets used yeah. Token holders. Like, if you can afford to be in the community, then you're a community member. And it's just, like, the way it's, like, used and wielded by Web three people, it's like, kinda describing an entity where everyone just kind of, like, you know, gets along and automatically has shared interests. Where, you know, like you like we're describing, community is more of, like, a it's more thing about, like, living in cities or towns or the people around you, where it's like, you know, living in a community is where you, like, kind of, like, a lot of people just, like, don't get along each other, and a lot of people have, like, kind of petty beef, but they all just, like, live near each other and have, you know, legacy together. A key a community is very again, just like a boring matter of fact thing.

Yeah. I also think, like, you know, the web you know, web three wants to differentiate itself from web two, but I don't think, you know, web three's use of the word community is not convincing that it's different enough than Facebook using the word community.

Yeah. I, should I touch upon, like, I guess how exactly the the nitty gritty of how blockchain factored into my proposal?

Yeah. So kinda getting back to my, like, prefigurative vision where, you know, quadratic matching funds and quadratic multi winner rank choice voting ushers in a council full of, you know, third party candidates or third party politicians who are believe that, you know, who believe in being public servants to the fullest extent. Who have just the very fundamental, primal ideal of what it means to be a politician, being a public servant, always being available to help people, then kind of, like, their goal as politicians, I think, should be to take participatory budgeting and, you know, exalt it from this minor process to the defining system of governance. The whole whatever money, you know, the entire annual budget should be governed by participatory budgeting through, you know, a variety of kind of mechanisms and scheduling that I outlined in my essay. Just citizens would be the people who are always shaping the entire city budget. And the way that would work is you take all, you know, all the USD money of a budget, kind of peg it to a city specific stablecoin where each stablecoin is, like, you know let's say you got, like yeah. Local current like, a local currency that's just for the sake of simplicity. $11 just $1. Loc local local coin, let's call it local coin, is just $1. You've got so let people give people what I call a kind of a universal basic allocation. You know, let's say we're still talking about New York City, and everyone in New York City got a thousand dollars in this local coin as part of a universal basic allocation. For reference, there's 9,000,000 people in New York City. That amounts to $9,000,000,000 of, universal basic allocation in total. You've got you still got $80,000,000 left in the budget. $80,000,000,000

What you do with the universal basic allocation is kind of through a system of quadratic funding. The remaining pool, the remaining matching funds pool is the rest of the annual budget. People can take those $1,000 and spread them across budget items. You know, money for sanitation, money for public housing, money for, you know, drug rehabilitation programs, maybe money to or not to the local police department. And through the process of quadratic funding, that would determine, in the end, how much of the matching pool would go towards particular items on the budget. And, yeah, it's just, you know, using quadratic funding to allow people to represent their wide range of preferences of what sort of public goods public goods they want, you know, to be better funded for them on a daily basis. And I'm not calling for, like, you know, the complete eradication of politicians. It would just be that, you know, you know, we're politicians. Sometimes, once in a while, have a town hall town hall, or there sometimes will, once in a while, respond to, you know, a letter from their constituents. Now it's like politicians would be would be like, oh, gosh. I've gotta have town halls every single day and be available as often as possible because my electability hinges on being available all the time to help people shape the budget. Because otherwise, there's a really kind of, you know, awesome voting process in place that I can easily get elected out of office if I do not do my job well. Like, the it's more there's a more direct more direct consequences for not being a good politician.

I think yeah. I think I mean, I think, again, it's just a matter of, like, you know, all the Crypto City essays are about crypto first, blockchain first, crypto first, blockchain first. Almost all the paragraphs are about crypto and blockchain, less so on just, like, straightforward basic governance. I mean, my intention was just to invert that. More about the democracy, more about the governance, more about just, like, the nitty gritty material conditions affecting people on a daily basis. And blockchain and crypto, yeah, that's a kind of a marginal aspect of this, but it's still still fundamental to what I'm talking about. But it's still, like, you know, not dwelling on it on every paragraph and sensationalizing it. I'm just saying it's kind of it makes money easier to send around. It makes money more transparent to send around. The politician was gonna say, oh, we don't have the money to do that in our budget. Oh, we don't have the money to do that in our budget. You point to the ledger and say, yes. We do. It's, very yeah. Just I I try to make it as just, like, basic as possible, and then, you know, yeah. Like I said, direct democracy first, blockchain second. Right. And that's, like I feel like that's I I've convinced myself I've convinced myself that, you know, if that that's gotta be the way for, you know, talking about crypto cities and winning people over who are skeptical.

Yeah. Why do all these crypto bros have to make everything about blockchains? I guess well, yeah. Again, it's like the the most boring answer is that, you know, blockchains I mean, of course, you know, there's all the stories of, like, blockchains getting hacked, blockchains getting hacked. But, like, I do think in theory, like, if a blockchain is you know, the blockchain could be as strong as possible. And also if a blockchain, like, proofs of proof I feel like, you know, proof of personhood's got to be the way for how the blockchain is secured just as a matter of, like, you know, democratic one person, one vote sort of security for proof of person blockchain. I mean, there's I think there are several ways to do the the identity aspects of it. I think there's, like Yeah. Quite a few solutions to that. But yeah. Anyway, that those are those are technical conversations probably. Oh, yeah. But, I just think, yeah, blockchain is, like, you know, it's harder to hack. So, you know, it's in theory, it's more secure than a centralized database. When it's decentralized, there's more paths to it's more difficult to hack when it's centralized. It's one path. I mean, I think just like the the aspects

doesn't work then, you know, like, type of thing. Exact I I relate. Alright. Yeah. I I mean, I I guess I I understand, you know, like, yeah, cringing at people who are, like, oh, you don't have everything Figured out. All outlined. Yeah. You're just you're just, you know, you're you're proposing something. You're proposing a better vision of the future, but you don't have every, you know, hard and fast detail worked out. Oh, it's not gonna be it's not gonna work. But, oh, yeah. Why blockchain? Yeah. Just, making it harder to get hacked, making all the money, you know, transparent on the ledger in real time as opposed to, you know, having to, like, dig through, you know, obscure PDFs to find out how much money is available or not available. And then, I guess, yeah. Or and this this was also kind of an aspect of, like, my, proof of personhood solution. But if, kind of, like, you know, how you know, jury duty uses sortition, the lottery process of, like, you know, selecting people to, you know, come to be on a jury, and then they get paid a little bit of money. Like, you know, validating a proof of personhood blockchain in the city could be, like, a sort of jobs program through Sortition. Hire people to just be available to validate the blockchain, and they can make you know, allocate funds so that they make a very comfortable annual salary doing so. And yes. And then yeah. So that would that that's also my solution for blockchain is that it's it could be a jobs program. Mhmm. Well, it could be if you like, if I could even, like,

There could be there there are legitimate reasons to want it versus other ones. I mean, yeah, blockchain is, like to be honest, blockchain is the only distributed ledger I'm familiar with. Or, I mean, I don't know. Is blockchain is blockchain considered distributed ledger? I take that back. Yeah. So it's a Okay. It is. So distributed ledger,

other a lot of other things, hash graphs and all this stuff. Gosh. Thank you. Yeah. I if I were to, you know, explain to leftists, I also gosh. I'm not familiar with the other distributed ledger technology. So I would have to, you know, say, like, oh, it's better than this or this or this. But, I'm not there yet. So

that cities are based on. The more you know, if you don't agree that politicians should have called the power and that, you know, whatever the practices of government shouldn't government shouldn't be centralized and behind closed doors, then you would, you know, blockchain at least makes it possible to dig deeper into, you know, the alternative world view of what would a more decentralized government local government look like. It, like, it makes it makes it easier to talk more about, you know, distributing power.

And, I am on Twitter at e ziegar sixteen. That's my Twitter handle. So, like, letter e and then z as in zebra, e g e r. Website is just eliziegier.com. If anyone wants to follow me on Instagram, I'm eli ziegier worldwide. So and, yeah, those are my various identities around the platforms.