There are 4 issues in the digital economy that will probably need to coalesce around a multifaceted regulatory solution in order to provide a plausible way forward that doesn't undercut liberal capitalism:
* anti-trust
* privacy
* identity
* AML/KYC
Anti-trust:
Beyond the Big Tech "break them up" narrative the real moat most of the platforms have that allows them to scale entire new product lines is the users' data they keep on file & the need to re-authorize access in order to access their platforms.
for any sustainably competitive environment to replace the big tech dominance, we need the proper infrastructure for cross-platform authorisations & access.
Meaning, let users export their data & plug it in across-platforms. but then remember that data, is essentially digital ID
Privacy:
Platforms who store users' metadata should be responsible & liable for how it's used, rather than another player in the game of identity brokers, vendors regulated FI use for risk management analysis.
Furthermore, make built-in privacy a perquisite, not a feature
Identity has to be designed on a principle based, not a sign in option reliable on a centralized party. Notice that most of the discussions around CBDCs (retail or wholesale) don't emphasize the identity object & data leakage across the networks
Identity on CBDC cannot replicate a similar gateway network as the one we see today either in finance or across Big Tech, instead it should be a network where less established players can evolve as stakeholders w/out the old boys' moats but w/ regulation
The final bin is really the end goal of all 3 (identity, privacy, anti-trust) - how to assure AML compliance in a different way, using technology but not being beholden to a regulatory state of hyper surveillance to appease theoretical fears, yet enforce real criminality
not to throw too many buzzwords into a thread, but I've thought for many years that the end game is decentralized identity networks & frameworks using privacy tech such as zero-knowledge for regulatory verifications.
tech narratives evolve slowly, but focusing on the convergence
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The next few days ppl will make the case for how crypto would have solved the Robinhood saga: 1. Permissionless access - no one can block ppl from trading on DEXes or limit what assets they can invest in (theoretically) 2. Blockchain as a real settlement network instead of DTCC
Where trades are settled on T+2 3. Transparency allows for real time reporting on holding & shorts would bridge information asymmetry 4. Intermediary fees for market makers/brokers/settlements
The truth is more nuanced & grey. 1. Permissionless is only on-chain. Most ppl/capital still trade on exchanges or OTC. Despite a spike in on-DEX trade (with Uniswap even surpassing Coinbase during the DEFi hype), most trades will stay off chain for a while because /
You can’t applaud Israel’s vaccine success without understanding the nation’s healthcare is built around community based preventive care run by 4 competing non-profit HMOs.
It’s like Obamacare’s multi-tiered public options run by free market, probably as progressive as it gets
How do they compete? On service, perks, tech & convenience.
How fiercely? Well, Covid introduced a new vector - offer young ppl vaccines before they’re eligible according to the national criteria.
So HMOs w/an older demographic started campaigns incentivizing young ppl to switch
The other aspect of the huge advantage Israel has is digital health record.
Rabin’s gov, who reformed the health insurance in 93’, made it a point to digitize all medical records & secure them across HMOs according to strict MOH privacy guidelines, including cyber security
DeFi truism: 1. DeFi is a rerun of the 2008 asset backed finance bubble on speed. Predictable with self-gobbling mechanisms multiplying systematic risk via leverage in the system & composability 2. The bubble will be bigger than 17’, due to leverage & shorts 3. People will scam
4. Eventually the Cambrian explosion will implode on bag holders, but the winners have a leg up in regulated markets. Their DeFi financialization protocols will be battle tested in a way no sandbox can match 5. Security tokens will win demand from tegaukted DeFi before enterprise
*regulated DeFi before enterprise security token gain any significant market cap. No matter which consortia is behind it 6. Some DeFi projects will immigrate to CBDC networks it’s corporate chains, after they’ve gained enough capital
A lot of DeFi is a sequel to the 17’ ICO bubble, not because these projects are scammy. The criminals haven’t arrived yet, but because of 3 primary drivers in the crypto market:
- Post-ICO projects w/ deep crypto treasuries that manages to survive the bear markets w/real products
2. Eth killers with 9-figure foundations, VCs & ecosystem funds that have yet to launch & need to demonstrate PMF to maintain their token’s price. What better way than to attract/invest in some DeFi infrastructure 3. DeFi actually uses infrastructure products the ICOs funded
That’s a signal that money is coming in to this bubble in the middle of a low yield environment where everyone is already trading by memes for random returns
with genuine humility i bring u some comments on David Marcus's attempt at Libra-splaining to congress, any snark is pathos free & unitentional. the fault is on the Zuck banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
Marcus is careful to describe Libra as a payment infrastructure, although no token has managed to this day to deliver a scalable solution that can be deployed to millions, the ambition of Libra is far greater than that, and we have no assurance that is even plausible 2/
Even if users only use Libra for payments (a theoretical) don't ignore the fact that Libra membership is a security token, earning their holders a share in the interest income of the reserves. it's income on FB's R&D costs no less.
Short thread on the app-ripple effect of the Apple privacy/identity announcement. Apple is in midst of transitioning into a service company, where the premium users' pay on hardware is akin to a fee. That tradeoff will tickle down to 3rd party apps who need to contend w/biz model
up till now users' looking to use/access apps were asked to sign up using an identity layer (FB/Google) or share their email. the biz model was a trade-off, users' data was not only shared with the app, but that identity provider (FB/Google) in the following ways: 2/
1. Sell in-app ads using the combined cross-referenced data from FB/Google, mostly on the FB/Google ad exchanges. Where the tech giants serve as the market infrastructure, the sellers (of attention real estate) & the buyer (for their own content)