YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Live Community Call (16 Oct 26) Fri

Live Community Call (16 Oct 26) Fri — Transcript

by Society Protocol · 14,509 words · 2,576 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:03Awesome wordline.
0:06Okay, welcome everybody.
0:09We're about to start a new community
0:10call for Society protocol.
0:13Welcome Ashton.
0:17>> Hey French.
0:19>> Yep.
0:21So we have a lot of things to discuss
0:22today. There's been a lot of things
0:24happening also in the
0:28in the tech space.
0:30Whether it is
0:32on the security front, whether it is on
0:34social aspects.
0:36The thing is just moving forward and
0:39we're really excited to be here today to
0:41talk about Society protocol and how it
0:43can affect
0:45every single aspect of our lives.
0:52I'm going to share now my screen.
0:54So we can have a shared topics to
0:56discuss.
1:07So today I would like to discuss
1:10for example, we can start with the
1:14creative contest submission.
1:17There's been close to 106
1:21articles, videos, essays.
1:25It's quite
1:26an overwhelming amount and we've been
1:29reading every single one of them. So
1:32for everybody
1:34to know,
1:35we have
1:37we have a filtering process as well just
1:39to detect who was doing
1:42just AI
1:44slop.
1:46And it has also been an interesting
1:49process to just realize how much people
1:52understand about Society protocol.
1:54What are they getting lost at?
1:57what are the common questions.
2:00A lot of times it was because they all
2:02just pointed everybody to the same
2:04conclusions and was easy to see like
2:09where most people were just
2:12not getting the the the ideas right and
2:17we've been effectively able to
2:20to evaluate how is people doing and
2:23we're interested to see more
2:27single ideas instead of just try to
2:31focus on the entire project. I have seen
2:33so many
2:34so many articles trying to explain the
2:37whole thing completely
2:40and they would often fail and
2:45be
2:46really overwhelming, I would say.
2:49When it comes to try to explain the
2:50whole thing in a single
2:53in a single attempt.
2:57That's probably one of the main things
2:59that I noticed
3:00uh when it comes to the contest.
3:04And maybe we we need to
3:07be more
3:09uh
3:10what's the name of this thing? There
3:11There was an experiment. There was a
3:13really interesting experiment with a lot
3:15of people
3:16when they are put
3:18to a test
3:20um you just give them a a single topic
3:23and it's pretty big.
3:26You just tell them, "Hey, go explain
3:27this." And they might still be a bit I
3:30wouldn't say confused but because you
3:32haven't give them enough constraints
3:34they are unable to create something that
3:37is uh
3:38high quality or
3:41they would get lost into the
3:44not into the details but people would
3:46often just get lost and speak about
3:50not details stuff. But instead, when you
3:53give them a very specific thing that
3:55they should talk about they suddenly
3:57become like
3:58really good at it because well, it's
4:01really focused. They can just
4:03instead of wondering like what topic
4:05should I talk about you just tell them
4:06hey, you can just choose one of these.
4:09So I was thinking that maybe people are
4:11having the same problem.
4:13Um
4:15in the sense that
4:20they can for example just choose a
4:22single article and focus on that
4:24specific article because every single
4:26article that we have in Society Protocol
4:29big everything, the state of the state,
4:31every single article is so packed and
4:34dense with ideas.
4:36Um
4:38people should just stay and focus on a
4:41single article just to
4:43mine and get the most out of it I would
4:45say.
4:46And out of that we can get way better
4:49articles. One of the winners for example
4:52this month was the one that spoke about
4:55after the camel if I don't remember
4:57correctly.
4:59And it was an interesting take on
5:00identity and the multiple layers upon
5:04which you can expand the problem.
5:07And that's why I also felt like okay,
5:09this is finally a an interesting take on
5:12the situation.
5:13I was really excited to read it.
5:21So yeah, I would say that maybe we need
5:23to nudge people a little bit on on on
5:27focusing on very specific topics instead
5:29of trying to be broad and
5:32never land into any single idea and try
5:35to just compress the project just give
5:38to AI and
5:40then
5:41trying to trying to gain the system
5:44effectively.
5:46Any any thoughts on that, Ashton?
5:49>> Yeah, I had a few thoughts about the
5:51submissions and I should probably I've
5:52been thinking about writing them out in
5:54the for the content creators in the
5:55content creators channel.
5:57But, the two like recurring feelings I
5:59had when reading the submissions was
6:02that every article that I saw that was
6:05critical of Society Protocol compared
6:07Society Protocol to some kind of like
6:09notion of perfection that they had in
6:11their minds.
6:15And that notion of perfection, I'm just
6:17kind of like I would rather see Society
6:19Protocol compared against actual
6:20concrete alternatives rather than
6:24uh what it how it's not perfect. And I
6:27mean, I think it gets pretty damn close
6:28to perfect, but like I would rather
6:30actually personally see Society Protocol
6:32compared against the viable range of
6:34alternatives rather than
6:37some like notion of like what it needs
6:40to do to be perfect.
6:42You know, because we have often times
6:44like what people aren't realizing is
6:45that
6:47this whole like range of perfection
6:48isn't possible. There's no actual system
6:50that can get you that whole range. And
6:52so, every every article I just see it
6:54being compared against like I've never
6:56seen it compared actually against it its
6:58alternatives, which is alternative
6:59systems that can coordinate people,
7:01right? That's what's interesting to me.
7:02I would like to see that kind of
7:04comparison.
7:05Uh but, every article instead I see the
7:08same comparison against like
7:09uh it needs to do this to be perfect and
7:12that to be perfect and that to be
7:13perfect. And that's okay. I just I kind
7:15of get um it's repetitive. Like I kind
7:18of I kind of think that at some point
7:19like I think that we need that, but
7:21um
7:23I think that it's already understood by
7:25most people. And also, it's different
7:26for most people like the notion of what
7:28perfect is differs between individuals.
7:31And also, that range isn't possible. And
7:34I just never see people comparing it
7:35against actually like
7:37alternative systems. You know, compare
7:39it to Web3, compare it to nation states,
7:41compare it to other coordination
7:42systems, compared to the corporate
7:43structures, right? Uh All that stuff to
7:45me would be more interesting than
7:48um
7:49the
7:51kind of theoretical comparison to
7:52perfect. The second part that I find is
7:54that people always love to mention
7:57Goodhart's law.
7:58And
8:00I'm kind of sick of reading some vague
8:01notions of Goodhart's law. What I would
8:03like people to do is to
8:06go look at the value functions
8:08and actually tell us how you would
8:10exploit those value functions using
8:12Goodhart's law. Like how would people
8:13game the system, right? Find ways to
8:15game the system, find counterbalances to
8:17that. You know, all the value functions
8:19in how society protocol like is designed
8:21is all listed out there. And so
8:24I would rather actually like
8:26I I've heard this vague notion of
8:27Goodhart's law like
8:3050 times now, right? But I've never ever
8:32ever heard anybody like actually take
8:35the value functions of society protocol
8:37and start thinking about how they would
8:38actually game the system itself.
8:41Which is again kind of strange to me
8:44where I would rather see more details
8:46about like, you know, how would you
8:47exploit the system? You know, is that
8:49fixable? What's the What's the What's
8:51the fix to that? Why wouldn't people fix
8:53that? More more like precise things
8:55when, you know, I would suggest that
8:56people actually pick one value function
8:58or a combination of value functions and
9:00try to game them and write an article
9:02about gaming them and how like
9:05uh that would be counter counteracted,
9:07you know, by the governance or stuff
9:10like that. You know, just more precise
9:11things rather than I Like we all
9:13understand Goodhart's law. You know,
9:14it's nothing new or special to us. It's
9:17the system is We We understood this when
9:19we built the system. It's It's It's um
9:22understood. So, hearing it mentioned
9:24over and over without any specific
9:25examples kind of gets repetitive.
9:29>> Yes, I agree. And that's precisely where
9:32I felt that the influence of AI is
9:35becoming more and more prevalent,
9:37meaning everybody just converges into
9:39the same idea, but then nobody
9:41sits down and
9:43delves into it.
9:45>> Yeah, I find that people write too much
9:49and probably read too little. I find
9:50that the
9:52the actual like there's not that many
9:54people that actually like understand and
9:56think about Sharding protocol at a high
9:58level.
9:59And so
10:00like the thoughts end up being kind of
10:03Mhm.
10:05very kind of
10:08like basic, you know, basic level of
10:11understanding.
10:13Um but some are like some submissions
10:15were very good, too. Like some
10:17submissions go beyond that and it it
10:19just depends on the person. But there's
10:21a lot to like learn here and a lot
10:23deeper to get and a lot more interesting
10:25kind of stuff that comes up.
10:27You know.
10:27>> Yes. Yes, I agree.
10:30>> Yeah, I see some people backstage here.
10:32So,
10:33um if you guys would like to join us, uh
10:35just uh mention it in the private chat
10:37in the backstage private chat.
10:39>> Yep.
10:40>> [clears throat]
10:40>> I think Kelby's one of the winners, but
10:42he's at school right now, so he's
10:44probably not going to be able to join
10:46and
10:46>> Oh, got it. Yeah. Yeah, I really liked
10:49uh Kelby's article, too. Uh all the all
10:51the winner article uh all the winner
10:53con- creative contest stuff was really
10:55great. Um
10:56and it doesn't need to be articles, you
10:58know, the the videos that people
10:59submitted were all so like I found the
11:01videos really good. Even
11:03you know, we had 100 submissions and
11:04only three winners, so it's like
11:06like a lot of the stuff that didn't win
11:08the contest, I I also found really
11:09great.
11:10You know.
11:11Uh
11:12>> Yeah.
11:13And and about that, I'm probably going
11:14to start sharing uh
11:16really good articles that couldn't make
11:18it to the to the winners.
11:21Because well, it's 106 articles, sadly,
11:24so
11:27I think uh there are still like good
11:29articles that
11:30sadly they make it, so
11:33but they still deserve a lot of
11:35attention and they were really good
11:37articles, so
11:38we're going to be sharing that uh
11:41in the social media probably and
11:43start the discussion around it.
11:50>> Yep. Yep. Um
11:53I found um
11:56I found Praises article, you know, the
11:58world after Cabal really hit the nail on
12:00the head as far as like what society
12:01protocol like enables and kind of like
12:04one of the key points that we've all
12:06been converging into, which is
12:08uh a decentralized sovereign resistant
12:11identity system,
12:12you know, which is really the core of, I
12:16think,
12:17like one of the main points and what
12:19that enables, kind of like what Springs
12:21or I found the Kelvins article about
12:24like the philosophy and history of human
12:25coordination was really interesting with
12:27the historical references
12:29pointing back and forth to, you know,
12:32all the evolution of how people kind of
12:34thought about coordination, really
12:36interesting.
12:37Um
12:38Sernays article about like the issues
12:40that happen when society
12:42turns into a state machine, which is
12:44inevitable,
12:45uh was really, I thought, on point and
12:48interesting and like actually
12:50is thinking about the problems at like a
12:52higher level, you know, a bit deeper.
12:56Um and then Eclipses video was like
12:58really just amazing like production, you
13:01know. Like the short short form stuff is
13:03really
13:04uh great to see because it's, you know,
13:06we I I would personally like to see more
13:09uh also
13:11different stuff than than articles. I
13:13think we get a ton of articles, but you
13:14know, I would love to see videos, um
13:18workshops, you know, street art,
13:20stickers,
13:22um interviews, like, you know, uh
13:25anything any kind of creative content it
13:27the contest supports, you know, Uh we
13:30support. So,
13:31um
13:33but as far as the articles go, I would
13:35like to see people thinking about
13:36Society Protocol at a deeper,
13:38interesting level, um and that kind of
13:40like evolve over time.
13:42>> Yeah, I agree.
13:46Yes.
13:48We even have Kilroy showing up.
13:51Now, um
13:53would you like to talk about the 6-month
13:55goals we have so far?
13:57>> Yeah. Yeah, I think it's pretty
13:58important to talk about our 6-month
13:59goals. So, we're moving on a moving
14:01ship, and that ship is going somewhere
14:04in 6 months, and we have some pretty
14:05concrete goals that we would like to
14:07reach within the 6 months to get to the
14:09next stage of Society Protocol and kind
14:11of like um
14:13to
14:14for the project to really kind of
14:17uh blossom and flower kind of after
14:19that. These 6-month goals are
14:22on one side, there's three tracks that
14:24we're moving on that like we're moving
14:25on at the same time. On one side, we're
14:27developing the community, and so we do
14:30that with the live shows, we do that
14:33with the creative contest, we do that
14:35with social media, the newsletter's
14:37going to be starting soon, but it's all
14:38about developing our community. So, if
14:40you guys could help us develop our
14:41community and develop uh you know, to
14:43spread the word about Society Protocol.
14:46Um you know, that's um like that's what
14:51we're after. That's That would be great,
14:53and we really need to kind of like
14:55uh spread the word about this project
14:56because it can change everything, and
14:57it's just very important that we raise
15:00awareness about it. The second track is
15:03that we're building out a demo of
15:04Society Protocol, a prototype where
15:06people can actually play the game and
15:08actually access the system and actually
15:11start coordinating their communities
15:12using it. But the catch is is that it's
15:15a uh web two demo. So, it's a prototype
15:19that's going to
15:20get like people the game of Shady
15:22Protocol, but it's
15:24uh
15:25and allow people to test it and actually
15:27use it in their own communities and I
15:29think that's going to be really
15:29interesting too because
15:31I think it will work for a lot of
15:32smaller communities and like where
15:34there's not like high stakes on the line
15:38and also just seeing is believing. I
15:40think that it's a lot easier for people
15:41to understand what Shady Protocol is by
15:43playing
15:44the prototype and by testing it that way
15:47than it is for us to explain all the
15:49theories and like
15:51all the
15:54all the theories and all the complexity
15:55and why it's built this way and why why
15:58it has to be this way which is very
16:00difficult for people to understand. So I
16:01think that like the seeing is believing
16:02is very important and building out the
16:04prototype is where build it, you know,
16:06we're moving on that track and
16:09in 6 months
16:10we're hoping to have something for
16:12people. And then the third track is
16:15developing. So if you're like a
16:17developer and or a designer and you
16:19would like to help us with that, you
16:20know,
16:21you can email us at
16:23careers@shadyprotocol.
16:25You can show up to the forums, you can
16:26show up to the discord and message us,
16:28you know,
16:29a lot more about the demo is going to
16:32become public information like, you
16:33know, where we're going to build it in
16:35public and it'll be shared soon where
16:37people can contribute to the project.
16:39Actually like developers and designers
16:42as much as we can we're making it like
16:44public where the
16:46everybody can
16:48help us out.
16:49And then the third track that we're
16:50moving on is developing our network of
16:52advisors
16:54and investors and that's more like
16:56business development and so
16:59that's the third track. We just we're
17:02starting with that and within 6 months
17:04we would like to have a robust network
17:06of advisors
17:08where it just started and also investors
17:11ready for the project. In 6 months the
17:14demo should be ready. The our advisor
17:18and investor network should be um more
17:21like um
17:23robust and um
17:25you know, more ready for the project.
17:27And the community I would like to see
17:29the community grow about like
17:32I would like to see it like grow by like
17:34300% every month, you know. I think that
17:37so that when the 6 months hits, uh we
17:40kind of like that's when we start the
17:43that's when the fund raise starts and
17:44then we go towards actually building the
17:46real uh Web 4 synchronized stage after
17:49that. And you know, people we already
17:51have raised awareness and people can
17:53already play around with the demo. And
17:55people um we already have a good network
17:58uh of
18:00business relationships basically for
18:01that. So, that's a very important point
18:04for us that's going to happen in about 6
18:06months. By about April of next year is
18:09when we're looking to do all that and
18:10when we're looking to get it all of that
18:12ready.
18:13So,
18:14um
18:15the project, you know, it's been around
18:17for about 100 days now and it started
18:19out very like an intense flame, you
18:22know.
18:22Uh there was a lot going on. We've been
18:24setting up the infrastructure, you know,
18:26we've been uh forming the core team. A
18:28lot of people have been joining. Uh some
18:30people have been moving around, you
18:31know, positioning.
18:33We're going to bring it down to a bit of
18:34a
18:35like a shimmer, you know, we over this
18:37next 6 months everything
18:39uh
18:39needs to uh
18:41and has grown a bit more stable and just
18:44like now it's it's a time to let the
18:46project kind of shimmer and get um just
18:49continue
18:50um
18:51moving forward basically to this next
18:53stage. And that's an important stage for
18:54us that's going to happen over this next
18:566 months. So, that's the whole like next
18:596 months kind of the road map for that.
19:02Um
19:04that covers it. So, we have some open
19:06positions that we're looking for. One of
19:08them that I would say is important for
19:10for right now is a business developer.
19:12So, that role is listed on the website.
19:14Um the business developer is an
19:16important position that we're looking
19:17for right now.
19:19Um
19:20one, you know, we have we're starting to
19:23develop a strong engineering
19:24organization. Uh but it's always great
19:27to have like
19:29more uh amazing engineers. So, but the
19:32business developer would be a great uh
19:34spot right now. But you can see all the
19:35roles on the the careers page at
19:37shardingprotocol.com.
19:39Um yes. So, the senior blockchain
19:42engineer, business developer, and then
19:43we're looking for a CEO still. But the
19:46CEO, it's a very specific position for a
19:48very special person. So, it's not like
19:50we're looking to fill that like right
19:51away or anything.
19:53Um
19:55That that pretty much covers those um
19:57things for us.
19:58That's all I have to say about those.
20:00>> Wonderful. And I just wanted to make a
20:02comment about the the second track you
20:04mentioned the
20:07the demo. Um there was a few persons
20:12asking about it. And they wanted to know
20:14like if it's possible to build in public
20:17so they can also kind of join for the
20:19ride and maybe
20:21do
20:23uh small collaborations and and just get
20:26an idea on on how to build the demo, for
20:28example. And I'm really happy you
20:30mentioned that it's going to be built in
20:31public. So, no need for people to wait
20:34and
20:35and just be and and not know the details
20:38about that. So,
20:39I just wanted to mention that that is
20:41inside of the six-month goal. So, that's
20:44that's going to be really wonderful.
20:46>> Yeah, I see that Kelvin asked in the
20:48background about, you know, to uh please
20:51talk more about the business developer
20:52role. What's the job description? So,
20:55the the business developer, it's um
20:58first
20:59I would start with the the roles page on
21:01the website at shardingprotocol.com,
21:03right? But let me talk about the
21:04business developer job description a
21:05bit. And so, the business developer
21:07Society Protocol has an amazing
21:09potential for an aligned network of
21:12communities, advisors, investors,
21:16uh media channels like uh conferences
21:18and podcasts that stretch all over the
21:21world and they are
21:23uh basically our partners, you know,
21:25they're partners for us, you know, an
21:27amazing network of um advisors, an
21:30amazing network of partner communities
21:32that want to head to Synchronized
21:33States.
21:34Um and
21:36these people, you know, they're
21:38from all walks of life and they are
21:42all over the world and they are real,
21:44you know, they're very high-level people
21:46in often the case. And so, the business
21:49developer is
21:51somebody that can uh maintain our
21:54relationships to this network, you know,
21:56it's it's our liaison to this network,
21:58it's the central point that uh this
22:01network interacts with Society Protocol
22:03through and the business developer is
22:05responsible for
22:07uh developing network, network,
22:08maintaining our relationships with them,
22:10negotiating with them uh the actual like
22:12details of our deals, um
22:15things like that, you know, they should
22:18um
22:18it's really important for the business
22:19developer to have a strong relationships
22:22in the web three and the network state
22:23space.
22:25Um
22:26I think that that's where we're going to
22:28start, but Society Protocol stretches
22:29outside of those of that space, right?
22:31It stretches into the
22:34the everyday life. You know, it really
22:36should touch everybody in the world
22:37eventually, but to start off, you know,
22:40I think it's really important for just
22:43to to
22:45be able to develop those relationships
22:46in the web three and network state space
22:48uh right now.
22:50Um that's about it, you know, it's a
22:52role about building a network of
22:53relationships with um
22:56various uh stakeholders, you know.
22:59And the stakeholders being
23:02a really great aligned network that's
23:03going to move with us over the long
23:05term. You know, it's it's really hard to
23:07find people that are moving in the same
23:08direction long term right now, and I
23:10think that that's probably the biggest
23:11benefit of the role.
23:14>> Yeah.
23:15>> Definitely.
23:17Thank you for asking, Kelvin.
23:23And would you like to talk now about the
23:25duplications of everything? What do you
23:27mean specifically?
23:29>> Yeah, I'm going to keep reminding people
23:31probably for a little while here, but um
23:33we don't know what's going to happen
23:35with the project. We don't know, you
23:37know, if the GitHub is going to like
23:39allow us to stay there or if anything is
23:41going to happen. Please uh please make
23:43duplicates of all the content so that
23:45you can have it so that uh everybody is
23:49that, you know, is welcome to kind of
23:52interpret Society Protocol in their own
23:53way and build it in their own way um
23:57potentially, but just having those
23:58duplicates is good for that, you know.
24:02>> Yeah, that's wonderful. Yeah, I just
24:04realized that's true.
24:06And I remember there is a saying that
24:08goes along the lines of
24:11um one is none and no, two is one and
24:16one is none. Meaning you always need a
24:18backup. You always need to keep that in
24:21mind and if you don't have it, it's
24:23really really problematic.
24:25>> Yes, there's no reason that 10 different
24:27groups of people from around the world
24:29uh shouldn't have a copy of all the
24:31content library and all the Society
24:34Protocol content and like the website
24:36and our code base in their local
24:38machines, you know,
24:40for just as a backup, you know, just
24:44no reason not to.
24:45>> Yeah, yep, yep. I'm definitely going to
24:47do my own backup and I I just realized
24:50I'll wait. I'm missing that.
24:52I'm missing out on that.
24:55So, now we can jump to world news
24:58updates because there's a lot of things
25:00been happening in the
25:02Twitter space security.
25:05Man,
25:06the the speed at which
25:09the whole industry has started to move
25:12because of AI and because of AI agents
25:16is crazy and
25:19I have even I have started to see
25:21already, for example, because I wanted
25:23to talk about this uh
25:25closed networks
25:27that a new paradigm is finally setting
25:29in and having, for example, Society
25:32protocol
25:34as a precursor or
25:36having seen it
25:39talking about this before everybody was
25:41already
25:43getting ready for about this.
25:45It's quite interesting.
25:46And this topic that I brought forward, I
25:50did it mostly because uh Eric Torenburg
25:52was talking about Kelsier
25:55and has created his own social media, I
25:58would say.
25:59And the main thing about that is that
26:01we're starting to see a new paradigm
26:03being formed. Like a lot of people
26:05prefer to stay within closed networks
26:07and having an in
26:09preferably
26:11an interoperable identity so they can
26:14just swap in and
26:16move between networks probably.
26:19But the most important part is that the
26:21internet can no longer be open by
26:23default and
26:25that's going to become more and more
26:26rare.
26:27That actually even shows in the next
26:30uh topic that I want to discuss later.
26:33Uh
26:36but
26:36I'm seeing like an interesting shift in
26:39the way people are approaching now
26:41social networks and
26:43becoming much more aware of hey, the
26:46public space needs to have some degree
26:49of moderation and control
26:51so we don't feel like it's just an
26:55the wild west, I would say.
26:57>> Yeah, I want to talk about some things
26:59here, actually. I want to talk about
27:00some things here. So, number one, I want
27:01to talk about that Society protocol does
27:03a lot more than this. It's not just a
27:04closed network.
27:06It's also a network where people own
27:08their own identities.
27:10So, you can have a closed network,
27:12right? But, that closed network all the
27:15identities might belong to one party.
27:18So, now you have your whole closed
27:19network like all the everybody is in it
27:21actually belongs to just one party.
27:23That's one thing.
27:25The second part that Society protocol
27:26does that's really important that's
27:28above this is that when you have a
27:30closed network, you need rules on who
27:33can invite who, right? And who can
27:36access this closed network? And who can
27:38um
27:40who gets access, right? And those rules
27:42need to be manually enforced by
27:44moderators or some kind of like admins,
27:47right? Society protocol doesn't need
27:49admins or moderators. It uses the
27:51parenting mechanism that allows anybody
27:53to invite people in the right
27:55circumstances, right? So, it's
27:57um because when you get the the the
28:00network that's a closed network that's
28:02um moderated by admins, you're go you're
28:05going to run into corruption. So, it
28:06doesn't scale well, right? So, both of
28:08those problems are problems from closed
28:10networks that closed net closed networks
28:13I are very important, right? Because the
28:15if somebody could tell me how to stop
28:17people from messaging me on my phone and
28:19spamming me like I get five messages
28:21every day like text messages. It's an
28:23open phone network, right? I can't stop
28:25that.
28:25Um and so, closed networks are really
28:27important. Yes, Eric Thornburg is right.
28:30They are very important. But, the
28:31problems that you get when you move to
28:32closed networks are number one that
28:35in a centralized architecture like
28:38the owner of that network owns the whole
28:40network.
28:41And number two is that in a closed
28:43network, you need admins, right? Who
28:44will allows other people to join? And
28:46when you get admins, you get corruption.
28:48You get gatekeepers, you get corruption,
28:50you get like the very natural human
28:53power dynamics of
28:56uh I am an admin here. This is kind of
28:58my domain, and I'm going to extract
28:59resources from that.
29:01So, even when you get closed networks,
29:04right? There's three steps here. Number
29:05one step is that look, I have my phone,
29:08and I'm being really annoyed because
29:09people send me like five spam messages
29:11every day, and it's probably I think I
29:13get like five to 10 every day. I don't
29:15know how to stop it. If somebody has
29:16clues on that, message me in the
29:18Discord. Um number two is that okay,
29:21well, what we what we want to do is
29:22create a closed network.
29:24And I'm going to uh you know, but then
29:27like who's the dictator that owns a
29:29closed network?
29:30Well, that that's a huge problem. And
29:32then number three is
29:34the well, um
29:37my closed network
29:40needs now rules for people to join. Who
29:42controls those rules? So, Society
29:43protocol solves all three of those.
29:46Whereas,
29:47one step up the ladder kind of to a
29:49closed network just solves um
29:52that first part. Basically, if you know,
29:54we can't have the free space.
29:58>> Yes, 100% and thank you for mentioning
30:01all of that because at first, it would
30:04take people uh
30:06the realization, "Oh, okay, we need
30:08closed networks." for them to finally be
30:11far more accepting of Society protocol,
30:14for example. So, the paradigm shift is
30:17happening in front of our eyes. We're
30:18perfectly positioned to take advantage
30:20of it. So,
30:21I'm really excited of about what hap-
30:24what's happening in the world. So,
30:26that's also the point that I was trying
30:28to make before uh with when I say that
30:30AI agents, for example, are one of the
30:33forces that
30:35are making the shift to Society protocol
30:37even more prominent. Like, a lot of
30:39people don't want to
30:41speak with AI agents and they would
30:43rather just know, okay, this is a closed
30:46network only for humans. Awesome. Thank
30:49you. Uh
30:51It's for a lot of more reasons.
30:54Oh, Kelvin is asking like
30:57I need to understand what rules in this
30:58networks are decided. Sorry if I'm
31:00asking too much.
31:02No, no problem, Kelvin. And it's
31:06And Kelvin also makes this question in
31:08the private chat. Is there like a public
31:10consensus or just selected decision
31:12makers? He's probably about talking
31:14society protocol maybe or just closed
31:17networks in general.
31:25Yeah, he's probably asking questions
31:27about like what's the
31:32Is there a consensus or decision maker?
31:38I'm just going to share the
31:39the comments he has made on the
31:42on the chat.
31:46I need to understand what rules in this
31:48networks are decided.
31:51Is there like a public consensus just
31:52decision makers? Yeah, probably just a
31:54question on
31:57how those rules are decided on the
32:00Actually
32:01Are you Yeah, you're not muted. Okay.
32:04>> Kelvin, is this a question about society
32:06protocol or other networks?
32:09I'm assuming that it's about society
32:10protocol. So, in society protocol, the
32:13rules are decided by the governance by
32:15the synchronized [clears throat] social
32:16contract
32:17and the new invites
32:20are created using the parenting
32:22mechanism.
32:25Um and
32:29So, there's no real like
32:31it's not Society protocol doesn't have
32:32selected decision makers. What it has is
32:34that anybody can use um depending on how
32:38the governance structure is set up in
32:39that instance anybody can use their
32:41energy to allocate it to governance you
32:44know or to make decisions based on how
32:47they use their energy basically or to
32:49invite people to the system if they
32:50allocate their energy to parenting for
32:52example.
32:53I'm assuming this question is about
32:55society protocol but I think we can move
32:56on to
32:57>> Yeah, we can just move on I think.
33:00Would you like to talk about Justin
33:02Drake's spooky post about cryptography
33:05yesterday?
33:06>> Yeah, I mean so Justin Drake is an
33:10Ethereum researcher
33:12he made a very
33:14spooky post you know in the past he's
33:16made a lot of posts about working
33:18closely with like Google or nation
33:20states I believe about like on the
33:23cryptography side of things and he he
33:25made a very like
33:26fearful post about quantum breaking
33:29cryptography.
33:30And it sent the whole like
33:34Twitter space into a oh blockchains
33:37might not be safe we need to upgrade to
33:41quantum resistant cryptography. I think
33:43it caused a bit of a a stir and a panic.
33:46But really they're talking about quantum
33:49um
33:51quantum computing breaking cryptography
33:54now
33:55and and we have to assume that Justin
33:58Drake knows something that we
34:00potentially don't.
34:01Right because he's working closely with
34:04these high level research labs. Like the
34:07first assumption is that like
34:09we can assume that either Justin Drake
34:11knows something that we don't or that
34:12they're using this information to
34:15manipulate the public.
34:17Now which one of those you know it can
34:18go both ways but
34:20both ways are true so if somebody that
34:22like has this insider information is
34:25acting like this
34:26we can get scared. The thing about like
34:28breaking public cryptography is that it
34:31wouldn't just break blockchains, it
34:32would also break
34:34all internet encryption.
34:36And so
34:38we would have really big problems then,
34:41but I think that the kind of thing that
34:43Justin
34:44mentions like in his post is that what
34:48he's talking about isn't like this
34:49instant breaking of encryption, it's
34:51kind of more like that within 20 minutes
34:53potentially
34:55um they can break the cryptography for
34:57like one private key or something. And
35:00that would be I mean, that would be the
35:02end of potentially blockchains, but
35:06as far as like the internet, you know,
35:08they could re-encrypt everything every
35:09like 15 minutes or something.
35:12And
35:13it's it scared the whole industry, but
35:15then people kind of started saying that
35:17it doesn't really it's not realistic and
35:19it's just like fear-mongering.
35:22Um
35:24I don't at this point like I don't have
35:26much to say about it. I'm not terribly
35:28I worry about this. I worry about this.
35:31So, the National Institute of
35:34cryptographic standards has been known
35:36to uh input backdoors into cryptography
35:40standards. And quantum cryptography is
35:43very complex.
35:44I worry that they could be using this
35:46kind of fear-mongering tactics to input
35:49um
35:51like really complex quantum
35:52cryptographic um
35:55quantum cryptography proof kind of like
35:58algorithms into the systems and that
36:01could cause bugs actually. So, until
36:04things start getting hacked like
36:08I just it hasn't been solved and a lot
36:10of people start saying that like it's
36:12just
36:14yeah, fear-mongering potentially um
36:18but yeah.
36:19>> True. The they are the two possibilities
36:22you mentioned, like it's about fear or
36:24they do have like some inside knowledge,
36:27and
36:29they might be exploiting the system
36:30already. Uh wouldn't that make all
36:32communications public by default?
36:35>> That's That's the thing that he's
36:36saying. It seemed like he's not saying
36:38that like they can crack all
36:39communications within like 1 second. It
36:41seems like he's saying that they might
36:43be able to with advances crack something
36:45like one communication every 20 minutes.
36:50>> Yep, got it. Makes much more sense now.
36:56That's
36:57I would like to say great, but it's
36:59crazy. We live in such an interesting
37:01world now.
37:03>> Um
37:04honestly,
37:05with me, I'm just like it's just like
37:07show me. Like just until they show me
37:10something like this, I can't wake up
37:11every morning and concern myself with
37:13this kind of stuff, you know? If public
37:15cryptography breaks, even if it's every
37:1720 minutes, it would break the whole
37:18internet. Like you you would have really
37:21giant like cataclysmic world-changing
37:25things happen because like the bank
37:27accounts would break. Your bank
37:28accounts, your private messaging, your
37:31HTTPS connections on the websites,
37:33right? And so
37:35I mean, if it happens, then like we're
37:37dealing with a whole different reality,
37:38but until that happens, I can't just
37:39wake up every day and like be concerned
37:41with that kind of stuff.
37:42>> Yeah, absolutely.
37:45And would you
37:46would you like to talk about now about
37:48Kalshi and
37:50this hacker accessing the national
37:53Yeah. Denmark ID database.
37:56>> I think that this is actually really
37:57Somebody posted this on the Discord, and
37:59um
38:00this topic is really
38:02kind of I see this happen like
38:05every I mean, how often do we see
38:07massive hacks of databases that
38:09corporations own? It's like every 2
38:12weeks, you know, there's like a massive
38:14hack. Nobody gets punished. No, they
38:16have no way of stopping it. And the
38:19database password was 1 2 3 4 5 6 for
38:228.8 million people's like uh national
38:24IDs, which is I mean obviously should be
38:27really secure. What I want to talk about
38:28is the difference between how Society
38:30protocol stores information and how
38:31current corporate databases store
38:33information. Which is that in Society
38:36protocol
38:39when somebody gets hacked, they would
38:40hack their one account. So like all the
38:43work that the hacker did to like access
38:45one person's cryptographic key would
38:48just hack their one account. It wouldn't
38:49hack everybody's. Right now, since we
38:51delegate all the data to like these
38:53massive corporations, it hacks
38:56everybody's accounts because the
38:58corporation holds everybody's accounts.
39:00In Society protocol, once we make that
39:01transition, it will just hack one
39:03account. So like these massive hacks
39:05won't happen. The massive hack that
39:07would potentially happen would be
39:08hacking the whole protocol. And so like
39:10then you would have need kind of backup
39:12rails or like, you know, um
39:14a way to restore the state, stuff like
39:17that. But it polarizes hacks in Society
39:21protocol
39:22to either just one account or breaking
39:24everything. And so we obviously want to
39:26build it as securely as possible so that
39:28everything doesn't break.
39:29But hacking one account is not going to
39:31like cause giant problems for society
39:33the way that these corporate database
39:35hacks
39:36that are really easy actually to obtain,
39:38right? All that they have to do is just
39:39obtain a password to the database and
39:41stuff like that, you know, maybe a few
39:43other security guardrails, but this
39:45happens every two weeks and exposes the
39:47whole, in this case, nation states of
39:49Denmark national ID database.
39:53To for anybody to take.
39:55Um so that's a really broken system and
39:58nobody even tries to fix it because we
40:00need these digital IDs, right? Um but we
40:04can do a lot better actually
40:05potentially.
40:06>> Absolutely.
40:07>> the hacking surface actually goes down
40:09to having to hack one account at a time.
40:14>> Yeah, that's way easier to manage and
40:16people would feel way more um
40:19secure. By the way, I think a lot of
40:21times, and you also mentioned this,
40:24people project into Society protocol the
40:27always of thinking, meaning, and I could
40:30easily see the case that people would
40:32say that Society protocol would also I
40:35wouldn't say get hacked, but
40:38if they haven't had enough time to think
40:40about the way in which data was supposed
40:43to be stored in a decentralized space.
40:46Uh they would assume, "Oh yeah, if
40:49something something like this happened
40:51to a nation-state, then the same thing
40:53would happen to Society protocol."
40:55or something like that. And
40:58they haven't considered the
41:00the data architecture you're mentioning.
41:03But most importantly, just to mention
41:04this idea of projection. Like we're
41:07living in the
41:09centralized era. Most of the examples we
41:12see in the world are centralized, and
41:15when we see an alternative, we really
41:18rarely
41:21can contrast or get to see the contrast.
41:23Like
41:24we're basically projecting what we
41:28currently know, and
41:30Yes. To see things differently, often
41:33it's a bit difficult for people.
41:37>> Yeah, for sure. I I find that that
41:38happens a lot, and it's really an
41:40impossible problem to solve without
41:41actually building out Society protocol
41:43the demo. Like I find that the
41:45projection that people uh project their
41:48current reality onto Society protocol is
41:51kind of like this weird human nature,
41:53almost.
41:55It It's
41:57It's just how perception works, but it's
41:59kind of insanity. But it's kind of like
42:00how perception works, and um
42:03that
42:04there's no way to fix it without
42:05actually building the thing, you know?
42:07It's just people are going to project
42:08their current reality onto whatever the
42:11future you offer them is. It's like I
42:13feel like um
42:16Yes, that's just But, it's important to
42:18kind of think about That's why it's
42:20important to think deeply about these
42:21things and actually like think about
42:23what does change. But, people don't have
42:24the abilities to do that not because
42:27they lack thinking even, but because
42:30they don't understand the technical
42:31architecture. Like, that requires a lot
42:33of like
42:34not just
42:36That requires an understanding of
42:37cryptography. Like, to understand how
42:39society protocol does cryptography, you
42:41have to understand cryptography and
42:43computer science.
42:44And what percentage of the population
42:46understands that? Very little, right?
42:47So, if they don't have that
42:49understanding, then how can we expect
42:51any non-projection to happen? They can't
42:54They don't even have the the tools to
42:56think through the the puzzle all the way
42:57through to the end because they don't
42:59have that like
43:01that specialized knowledge of
43:04computer science. And so, I find that
43:06yeah, I mean, we've been experiencing
43:08obviously a ton of
43:09uh projection. Every every aspect of how
43:12people think society protocol is going
43:13to work comes from their current
43:15experience in nation-states. And it
43:18oftentimes like doesn't apply, but
43:20that's still where people start thinking
43:22from. Uh that's an unsolvable problem.
43:25That's why the demo is so important.
43:27>> That's right.
43:28>> Absolutely agree. I think it's about
43:30contrast. Before people really put
43:33things into
43:35context, it's really, really difficult
43:38just see things for what they are.
43:41And I just wanted to say, "Hey Eclipse,
43:43welcome."
43:45There we go. We have one of the winners
43:47like just listening to the the call.
43:53So, we can now move forward to the
43:56topic of the
43:58another interesting topic, the network
44:00school buying forecaster has
44:02a spark a lot of debate on
44:06how decentralized their platform was,
44:09but that's mostly on the
44:14on people who don't like what Balaji do
44:17what Balaji does and are mostly
44:20left-leaning. Like I I can describe the
44:22whole situation.
44:23Uh what ended up happening is that
44:25Balaji now owns the
44:29the main client, which is just the
44:30Farcaster in general,
44:32and
44:33>> [clears throat]
44:34>> he has now
44:35auto moderation in. So, a lot of people
44:38who are left-leaning
44:40uh
44:42have been effectively kicked out of the
44:45main client. So,
44:48they have effectively been invited to
44:50create their own client and just stay
44:52there
44:53>> [clears throat]
44:53>> on their own.
44:55And a lot of people think that as um
44:57oh, the platform was not really truly
45:00decentralized. Um
45:02this was a lie.
45:03And it's not exactly the truth, but a
45:07lot of people are running with that idea
45:09and have seen so many That's why I
45:11compile all of these
45:13uh
45:14people on Twitter complaining about
45:15Farcaster and
45:17how is Balaji a tyrannical dictator on
45:20despite the protocol being actually kind
45:22of like open and they can just
45:25create their own client and continue
45:28their lives.
45:29Their followers have not been lost and
45:33they can just be a annoying in a
45:36different platform, I would say.
45:38But a lot of people just like complain.
45:41Uh
45:41I found some criticism
45:45valid,
45:46but this has been the topic for the past
45:49day or two, probably.
45:51And I'm just happy to see a debate
45:54opening and
45:56much much more importantly than that,
45:58like
45:59it becomes more and more
46:01evident that people are also thinking
46:03about the same problem, but they don't
46:05have a solution. We have a solution.
46:08Let's go, man.
46:12>> Yeah.
46:14>> Yeah, that's that's what I wanted to
46:16discuss. Not really wanted to dive into
46:19the the the whole drama, but
46:21let's see how it evolves over time.
46:25But it was definitely uh
46:27the topic of yesterday, for example, and
46:29probably today, honestly.
46:31>> Yeah, I think I have to say that we're
46:33looking closely at the topic of
46:35decentralized social media as a company
46:37and as an organization. And we're going
46:40to go with probably the one that's the
46:42most decentralized, you know, for our
46:43community, the one that we can use and
46:46trust to be kind of like not
46:48you know, the most decentralized, the
46:49most censorship resistant, the most
46:51unstoppable.
46:52And that's going to be important for us
46:54as we develop kind of like
46:56um you know, we're looking into these
46:58topics as well. Oh my gosh, yeah.
47:00>> Yeah.
47:02>> Because um
47:04the alternative is staying on X, and X
47:07is very suboptimal, very problematic as
47:10far as like
47:11the control over the
47:13the algorithmic feed uh for a central
47:15entity. As much as I like the Flying
47:17Roadster, the Flying Roadster is
47:19amazing, but
47:20um
47:21the control over everybody's feed is
47:24giant societal problems.
47:26>> Yeah, no, it's got like powers to
47:30a group of I don't know. I don't know if
47:33X uses like human moderators, actually.
47:35It's probably all AI at this point.
47:39But yeah, too much power. I don't like
47:41that, and
47:42we definitely need to move out of side
47:44of X.
47:48Now, uh would you like to talk about the
47:50big picture micro topic debates? This is
47:53going to be interesting because privacy
47:54has been a topic that a lot of people
47:56have been I would say complaining about,
47:59but
47:59I get it. A lot of people see that the
48:03the wealthy
48:05the powerful have privacy and it's
48:08privacy for them, but not privacy for
48:10us. So,
48:12it's quite a double-edged sword. Would
48:14you like to expand on that, Ashton?
48:17>> Yeah. So,
48:19I was reading this article
48:21from
48:22this blog, The Bridge. Very very great
48:25blog, but um I was reading this article
48:29and he had some really interesting stuff
48:31about like
48:33about privacy and how privacy
48:36um
48:38is very it just I learned some things
48:41about
48:44some privacies
48:45aspects. So, let's talk about privacy in
48:47the modern age.
48:50When people
48:51become successful, they tend to escape
48:54the matrix. They tend to exit the public
48:57state and kind of like get some houses
49:00or stash their money outside the system
49:02far away, right? Stash their money
49:04outside the system, buy a nice house in
49:07the countryside, sta- run away from
49:10basically the matrix.
49:12So,
49:13the people that
49:15uh those people benefit
49:17everybody that like becomes in that
49:19position tends to want privacy.
49:23Um which right now in the system is
49:26unstoppable.
49:28Um
49:29privacy also every normal like citizen
49:32also wants privacy. Nobody wants like
49:34all their data recorded, but with the
49:36increasing amount of surveillance in
49:38society, it is kind of like an
49:41undeniable fact that
49:43with technology, privacy has gone down.
49:48But, when we think about who benefits
49:50the most from privacy.
49:53From having privacy, it's not the
49:56everyday people.
49:58The everyday people have most regular
50:01people have
50:03relatively a small amount to hide.
50:07The people that benefit the most from
50:08privacy in this world are giant mega
50:11villains, mega criminals, basically.
50:14Just It's just that simple. Like the
50:16benefit on privacy increases
50:18exponentially the more like mega crime
50:20that you do.
50:21If you do mega crime, you need that
50:23privacy.
50:24>> Yeah.
50:24>> If you're a regular person, like you
50:25would benefit from that privacy, but the
50:27people that benefit the most from
50:29privacy are mega villains. You know,
50:32they wouldn't be able to do what they do
50:33without privacy, right? It It would be
50:35impossible.
50:37And so, I think a lot of people This is
50:40This is something that I expected, but
50:42and it comes up from time to time, that
50:44people kind of like talk about the
50:46privacy of Signal Protocol, and it's
50:47also a form of projection.
50:50Of how Signal Protocol does privacy, and
50:51maybe there'll be more privacy in the
50:52future, but I would like everybody to
50:54understand that there's two ways to
50:56solve this puzzle.
50:58And one is to make
51:00And a lot of it is about equality,
51:02actually. It's either we want to make
51:04everybody equally private, or we want to
51:06make everybody equally public. Right
51:08now, what happens is that there's giant
51:10mega
51:12criminals that are able to preserve
51:13their privacy while surveilling
51:16everybody else.
51:19And so,
51:20they
51:22uh the people that are benefiting the
51:23most from privacy are not everyday
51:25people. It's actually the thing that
51:26allows the giant mega crime to happen.
51:32And so, like the equal transparency is a
51:34viable option. The equal privacy is a
51:36viable option, but at the current
51:38moment, privacy is a double-edged sword.
51:41And so, by giving it to people, the
51:44people that are going to benefit the the
51:45are not the people in society that it's
51:47like
51:48they're going to benefit society the
51:49most.
51:52Does that make sense?
51:54>> Yeah, it makes sense and
51:57I get also like why people would want
51:59some privacy but we're in this weird
52:02situation where
52:06>> What I'm saying is that everybody wants
52:07privacy. Like there's everybody in the
52:09world wants privacy relative to every
52:11other person and just they want privacy.
52:14But not everybody benefits from privacy
52:16equally.
52:17To some people privacy is worth a lot
52:19more than to others.
52:20And to giant mega criminals privacy is
52:23worth everything.
52:25The value on privacy to them is
52:27literally their lives.
52:29The value on privacy to an average
52:30person is relatively significant.
52:34Very different levels of importance,
52:36right? So the amount of value of who
52:37gets value from privacy is not really
52:40like when you compare the amount of
52:42value that good people get from privacy
52:44from the amount of value that bad people
52:45get from privacy.
52:47It's very skewed towards the amount of
52:48value that bad people get from privacy.
52:51>> Yeah, I've got it. That that makes your
52:54point even more.
52:56>> That's what I'm trying to say. That's
52:58really what I'm trying to say is that
52:59like
53:00both sides benefit from privacy but the
53:02bad people would not be able to
53:05um
53:06effectively operate and so the benefit
53:08that they get is literally like life and
53:10death.
53:12Right? Whereas to most regular people
53:15they're operating in a regular kind of
53:16within the system terms that privacy is
53:18like a nice bonus
53:20but something that they could
53:22theoretically basically live
53:25um
53:26like they wouldn't lose as much by
53:27losing it.
53:29>> Yeah, that's true.
53:31>> And so I think
53:33>> Yeah, would you agree with the
53:35the this um premise that what we want to
53:39do with society protocol is to make uh
53:42human action traceable and hence a bit
53:46more
53:47from to be computable or just to easier
53:51for the computer to be able to
53:53to be registered.
53:55>> Yeah, I want to get back to that in in a
53:57second. But I just want people to I want
53:59to I want to start this debate. I want
54:01people to understand that for every
54:02ounce of privacy that they're getting
54:04giving to themselves by wanting privacy,
54:06they're giving like 10 times that amount
54:08to parties that will
54:10uh cause them harm.
54:14Like so when they say that like
54:17we want uh privacy and that gives
54:19privacy to uh the actual people that
54:21actually like use that privacy in very
54:24very effective ways.
54:26Then they're granting privacy to both
54:28sides of that double-edged sword.
54:31You get what I'm saying?
54:32>> Yeah.
54:32>> And and one side of that double-edged
54:34sword is like really really
54:37um
54:38using that privacy in
54:40really um
54:42highly criminal, highly powerful, highly
54:45manipulative, highly
54:47um
54:48like
54:50ways.
54:52And that's like the article talks about
54:54the history of
54:56um
54:57basically the Rothschild family and the
55:00the island of the Rothschild island and
55:02talks about like the banking and how
55:05it gets really deep but it's really
55:06interesting. It talks about how
55:10the
55:11basically
55:13and it touches on the next point about
55:15capitalism. But it talks about how
55:18after the Battle of 1812 when they made
55:21the money all they basically bankrupted
55:24the British government it looks like and
55:26got control of the gold in the world.
55:29All the bankers still they they they
55:31they need privacy to exist.
55:34And so they found this they wanted to
55:37what they did is basically this. They
55:38bankrupted the countries of Europe.
55:41And
55:42now
55:44what they did is that they started a few
55:46things happened. One is that they got
55:47control over the gold, basically the
55:49gold supply of the world, which is like
55:51the monopoly. They kind of won the game
55:53of Monopoly, you could say, at that
55:54point.
55:55It seems like that happened. But then
55:57the second thing that happened is that
55:58they started the international
56:01um
56:02bond system, which is like a way for
56:04them to lend that gold back to countries
56:07and get interest on it, right? So, they
56:09they started the international bond
56:10system. Now, the article like says this,
56:13and it's kind of like a
56:16you know, it it kind of deduces a lot of
56:17things, but it's saying basically
56:20that to start this international bond
56:22system
56:24they needed a place to safely a private
56:26place to safely store the records for
56:29it, and also the gold to sustain it.
56:32Because if they stored that within a
56:33country
56:34that country would just seize all that
56:36gold.
56:38And so, what they did is that they they
56:41got a very private island off the coast
56:44of
56:45basically in Antarctica, and they would
56:47store all the gold there.
56:50It's an interesting article, like it's
56:52an interesting article. It's like
56:55conspiracy theory, but it's it's an
56:57interesting article.
56:59Um
57:00and so
57:01they needed the privacy
57:04from every nation state, and they also
57:07stored the records of double entry
57:08accounting records. And so, the double
57:10entry accounting records like naturally
57:13have privacy, right? So, they would sign
57:15contracts between the private capital
57:18bankers basically to lend money to
57:20nation states and to receive in exchange
57:23the international bond system like a
57:25bond certificate.
57:27Which is
57:28a basically an IOU from the nation
57:31state, right? Like,
57:32you gave me $100 worth of gold, I'll
57:35give you back $105 in a couple of years.
57:39So, to do that, they needed privacy to
57:41to store the actual gold away from any
57:43country's grasp.
57:45The article says that they stored it
57:47along basically in Antarctica, which is
57:50the most private place that you can
57:51think of.
57:53And then,
57:54when they need to finance the countries,
57:56they would be able to ship from
57:57Antarctica there, but
57:59I mean,
58:00that's kind of the story. And so, like,
58:03the
58:04the privacy that is required there to do
58:06that is highly like
58:08necessary.
58:11And that it's saying that that is the
58:13start of the international bond system,
58:15basically.
58:16And so,
58:18the second part that it gets to is the
58:19the double-entry records, that whoever
58:21has the records to this bond system of
58:24when it started, basically like those
58:27are the records to the start of the
58:28international like
58:30um
58:32the whole international system,
58:34basically.
58:35And it's saying that the Rothschild
58:37family, after bankrupting
58:40um the Bank of England, basically, is
58:44responsible for that, basically. For
58:46having those records. And they would
58:47store those records also in a very
58:49private manner because if if somebody
58:52captures those records and they're
58:53they're able to
58:55uh control and destroy those records,
58:57then they're that destroys the whole
58:59like basis of the modern system.
59:02So,
59:03the the double-entry accounting age
59:06privacy is really important, right?
59:07Because
59:08um you sign contracts with your
59:10counterparties. And when you sign
59:11contracts with your counterparties, it's
59:13private between just you and the the
59:15counterparty. In this case, between the
59:17Rothschild family and different nation
59:19states, right? They would sign
59:21contracts.
59:23But,
59:24when you think about like
59:26who benefits from those private
59:27contracts the most?
59:29It's uh uh
59:30it's highly deep deep deeply criminals.
59:35It's it's
59:36um
59:37like who benefits from private contracts
59:38the most?
59:40>> Yep.
59:42>> So, as far as like society protocol
59:44measuring all of that
59:46um yes, society protocol measures all of
59:48that. And once you measure all of that,
59:50you can do like all sorts of
59:53both good and bad things with it, right?
59:56But without measuring all that, there's
59:58still some people that are going to
59:59measure all that is what I'm saying.
1:00:01And those people that are going to
1:00:02measure all that are going to be deep
1:00:04deep highly criminal.
1:00:06So, it's not like it's not getting
1:00:07measured without society protocol. It's
1:00:08just being measured in a really poor
1:00:10form with uh a lot of privacy for some
1:00:12parties that are using it to
1:00:15uh basically exploit and control the
1:00:18rest of society.
1:00:20>> Got it. It's far more clear now.
1:00:24>> So, those parties are
1:00:27yes, uh
1:00:36>> Welcome, Eric. Yeah, you're welcome to
1:00:38chime in. We would like to hear your
1:00:43Yeah, your ideas.
1:00:45>> Here's what I'm thinking. The privacy is
1:00:47a commodity, but
1:00:49um
1:00:52many of us in the audience today
1:00:54we come from the crypto world with with
1:00:57for we've been buying selling crypto for
1:01:00whatever reason we got into crypto, and
1:01:03we've been dealing with the allegations
1:01:06uh from
1:01:08most governments
1:01:10that hey, crypto is just for criminals.
1:01:14Bitcoin is just for criminals.
1:01:16Uh nobody uses Bitcoin unless they're
1:01:20laundering money.
1:01:22And
1:01:24here's the thing. I I think that
1:01:27we got to come to grips with the fact uh
1:01:30Ashton is right.
1:01:32The biggest beneficiaries of crypto uh
1:01:35uh pardon me, of of privacy.
1:01:38The biggest beneficiaries of privacy
1:01:41are the people who have something to
1:01:43hide.
1:01:45And criminals fit that bill. No one has
1:01:48No one tries to hide things more than
1:01:52uh evil governments, evil institutions,
1:01:56and criminals. But I'll also add because
1:01:59I think this is going to resonate with a
1:02:01lot of the audience. Not just today, but
1:02:03people in the future who are checking
1:02:05out uh
1:02:07the podcast
1:02:08is
1:02:09people who have something that other
1:02:12people want to take and steal.
1:02:15If you don't have anything
1:02:19you can afford not to have privacy
1:02:21because no one cares about you.
1:02:24But once you have something that people
1:02:27want to take. Once you are something uh
1:02:30of of merit, you've accomplished
1:02:32something. You may have a reputation.
1:02:35You've got something to lose. You have
1:02:37something You become a target.
1:02:41Not because you did anything wrong, but
1:02:43because many times you did everything
1:02:45right.
1:02:47And you become a target. You need the
1:02:49privacy because it's protection.
1:02:52So that's the second I would argue
1:02:53that's the second group that benefits
1:02:56from privacy. They need the privacy. But
1:02:59they're not the you Ashton is right.
1:03:02They're not the biggest beneficiaries.
1:03:05It's the crooks and the criminals. And
1:03:07crypto is full of criminals. And maybe
1:03:12all these years
1:03:13when we've been hearing about oh the the
1:03:16rights of privacy and we got to have
1:03:18private transactions.
1:03:20And maybe a lot of us have had it wrong
1:03:23that wait, the governments have have had
1:03:26a point. The biggest people pushing
1:03:29privacy with crypto, it's all the
1:03:32crooks.
1:03:34And and maybe there's a solid point here
1:03:37and we and
1:03:39that's just something for the industry
1:03:41to face, but we got to be wondering how
1:03:44many people have we've been dealing with
1:03:46in crypto that have been talking about
1:03:49great and lofty goals and and they've
1:03:52got a narrative. Everyone's got a
1:03:53narrative. Everyone has a spin.
1:03:57And is it possible that for months and
1:04:00years
1:04:01we've been we've been bamboozled
1:04:05and we're sitting here developing a
1:04:06technology and in the meantime all these
1:04:09other people have just been using our
1:04:12reputation, our efforts, they've been
1:04:14stealing our good reputation from us.
1:04:19And and they're hiding behind a veneer
1:04:21of oh, what a right of privacy.
1:04:24And they're the biggest freaking crooks
1:04:27of the 21st century.
1:04:29That's just my question for the
1:04:31audience.
1:04:34>> Yeah, I mean, I agree with everything
1:04:36that you said, Eric. I absolutely agree
1:04:38with everything that you said.
1:04:40And basically, I mean, we have to
1:04:43conceptualize correctly that privacy has
1:04:44been
1:04:46an inevitable part of life in the past
1:04:48based on
1:04:50just how life was structured. The
1:04:52technologies that people used, right?
1:04:53Like so when back in the day when they
1:04:55had like the Industrial Revolution, they
1:04:58sailed ships around the world and they
1:04:59had gold to trade. Like privacy was just
1:05:02a natural fact of life.
1:05:04And so that's the only option that
1:05:07people had.
1:05:08Whereas these days the technology has
1:05:09changed everything.
1:05:11And now it's
1:05:13um
1:05:14it's a very uneven system, right? Where
1:05:17you you have a bit of both. Like,
1:05:20uh you have both the potential for some
1:05:22privacy, but also the privacy has been
1:05:24eroded.
1:05:26And so, I just completely agree with
1:05:28every thing that you said that but the
1:05:30and that the crypto industry is highly
1:05:33criminal in
1:05:34uh a lot of ways because of the privacy
1:05:36that it kind of like uses or tries to
1:05:39hide behind even though it doesn't work
1:05:41that well because of technology. And
1:05:43that
1:05:44the
1:05:44what I see that I think that people it's
1:05:47going to take people some time to get to
1:05:49is how like the future evolves around
1:05:51privacy. And um how society protocol
1:05:54like changes this equation because it's
1:05:56completely right what you said both that
1:05:58the worst people benefit the most from
1:05:59privacy, but also anybody with something
1:06:01to that they have things, they need
1:06:04privacy to sustain those things in the
1:06:06world that we live in right now.
1:06:08And why do they need privacy to sustain
1:06:09those things? Because we have unequal
1:06:11privacy, basically. And so, like if if
1:06:14somebody has like all these things and
1:06:17they own like very nice things, but they
1:06:19don't have privacy, then the other parts
1:06:21of the world that do have privacy can
1:06:23kind of like take advantage of that.
1:06:26Or even the parts that don't Yeah, it's
1:06:28Right, for somebody to be taken
1:06:30advantage of without privacy, they would
1:06:32need to be taken advantage of by
1:06:33somebody with privacy, right?
1:06:36So, somebody would have to be in the
1:06:37shadows, kind of see something nice that
1:06:40somebody else has, and then they could
1:06:42That's very vulnerable position.
1:06:44But, the way that I see the world
1:06:46evolving in society protocol is actually
1:06:48that
1:06:49basically the the community protects
1:06:52itself
1:06:54because it's more transparent.
1:06:56And so, right now, if you if you have
1:06:59something nice and you don't really know
1:07:01who's trying to take advantage of that.
1:07:04And when
1:07:05somebody does, when you lose something
1:07:07to like
1:07:08uh when somebody does take advantage of
1:07:10that,
1:07:11you don't really have like much of a
1:07:13recourse. There's no um
1:07:16mesh network of people of a community to
1:07:18support you, right? The the the
1:07:19government, you know, you know, you can
1:07:21open up a court case or something like
1:07:23it's the government's it's not going to
1:07:26generally doesn't work that well.
1:07:29What I see where I see the world
1:07:30evolving in the future is that people
1:07:33that have nice things are able to have
1:07:35those nice things because of the net
1:07:37mesh network effect of society
1:07:39altogether, basically. That's like so
1:07:42it's not just an individual protecting
1:07:44their property. It's kind of like their
1:07:46whole community protecting their
1:07:47property because that's what's best for
1:07:50the community altogether. That's the
1:07:52only way that I can see like changing
1:07:53that equation on privacy and that's
1:07:55where I I I hope the world is headed
1:07:57uh towards something like that because
1:08:00the alternative is that
1:08:02the
1:08:04some people have privacy and others
1:08:05don't and the people that are going to
1:08:06have the privacy are going to be giant
1:08:09uh mega criminals, basically. In uh and
1:08:12they will also
1:08:14see everybody else's uh data, whereas
1:08:17everybody else kind of lives in the
1:08:18dark.
1:08:19So, it's just going to create this big
1:08:20disparity there. The only way out of
1:08:22that is to create these mesh network of
1:08:25societies where the private property is
1:08:28more upheld by the network rather than
1:08:30every individual themselves.
1:08:32That's
1:08:34probably kind of
1:08:37That's
1:08:38>> Yeah.
1:08:38>> just But, people don't see that kind of
1:08:41like future because they're they're
1:08:42projecting the the reality that they're
1:08:44living in right now and they're saying
1:08:47um that's not possible.
1:08:50But, with society protocol actually
1:08:51becomes
1:08:53quite possible, basically.
1:08:55>> Ashton, I think what we need
1:08:58the solution here is to design a system
1:09:01where we rebalance
1:09:04all of these competing needs.
1:09:07We have a system of constant vigilance.
1:09:10And it's one in the 20th century was the
1:09:13very effective system of what was called
1:09:17mutual assured destruction.
1:09:21And that philosophy
1:09:23was the biggest and most effective
1:09:25deterrent against nuclear war
1:09:29when you had two major nuclear
1:09:31superpowers,
1:09:34the Soviet Union and the United States.
1:09:37And and the philosophy was uh coined by
1:09:41diplomats and used for decades.
1:09:44When I mean, if you go back 40 years, if
1:09:46you talk to people who were in high
1:09:49school or college in the 1970s and
1:09:511980s, uh they will tell you that their
1:09:54fears, their top fear in the 1970s
1:09:58wasn't double-digit inflation. It wasn't
1:10:01about, oh, will I ever be able to uh buy
1:10:04a house or uh uh
1:10:07uh find a right mate to uh settle down
1:10:11with.
1:10:12Their biggest fear 40 of And it was And
1:10:14it wasn't global cooling or global
1:10:17warming. It was the fear of nuclear
1:10:21annihilation.
1:10:23One of the One of the biggest successes
1:10:26of the past 30 or 40 years has been the
1:10:30relative peace in the world relative to
1:10:34how it was in the past. Now, uh how does
1:10:37mutual assured
1:10:38uh destruction fit into the uh crypto
1:10:42and privacy? Well, here's the the
1:10:45problem which you've identified, which
1:10:48is that the criminals aren't as
1:10:50vulnerable as the rest of us.
1:10:54We don't have mutual assured
1:10:56destruction.
1:10:57If we had mutual assured destruction,
1:11:00they would realize you come after us, we
1:11:04can come after you
1:11:06and perhaps more effectively than you
1:11:08can ever hurt us.
1:11:12And you've got to have that that
1:11:13equality of really of power.
1:11:17And you don't have that right now where
1:11:20where as you pointed out,
1:11:22the people who
1:11:24uh
1:11:25we don't have the privacy, but the
1:11:27people coming after us have the privacy.
1:11:30So, they're insulated
1:11:32from the same weapons they're using
1:11:36uh technology in many ways both as a a
1:11:40protect it's like a shield and a sword.
1:11:44They hurt us and then they pull back and
1:11:46we can't fight back to defend ourselves
1:11:50or to to fight back and create the
1:11:53necessary deterrence so that our rights
1:11:57are respected. That's where we need the
1:12:00rebalancing,
1:12:01which is at the core of society
1:12:03protocol.
1:12:05>> Absolutely. Um the world I see in the
1:12:08future is
1:12:09like this.
1:12:11So, I think that in in the future people
1:12:14won't be able to have like just like
1:12:15everybody needs a nation-state identity
1:12:17today, without which they would have a
1:12:19really hard time surviving, in the
1:12:21future everybody will need to be a part
1:12:22of a synchronized state tribe. And so,
1:12:25the synchronized state tribe, if one
1:12:28person from one synchronized state tribe
1:12:29attacks or like steals the property or
1:12:31attacks somebody from another
1:12:32synchronized state tribe, that almost
1:12:34triggers this kind of like mutual
1:12:36assured destruction kind of like it
1:12:37triggers conflicts that are way wider
1:12:39than that one interaction, right? And
1:12:41so, that is actually what prevents
1:12:43conflicts.
1:12:45Right? Uh whereas you won't be able to
1:12:47have this private individual that's just
1:12:49like lurking without a synchronized
1:12:51state tribe in the shadows without
1:12:54having an identity on a system that
1:12:57stretches kind of like
1:12:58as a mesh network past their identity.
1:13:00And since you don't have those people
1:13:02lurking in the shadows, everybody
1:13:04belongs to a synchronized state
1:13:05identity.
1:13:06Um any attack against any other
1:13:09synchronized state identity becomes very
1:13:12uh high consequential, highly
1:13:14consequential, right? And that's kind of
1:13:16what prevents
1:13:17um
1:13:18you know,
1:13:20big attacks from happening because they
1:13:22lead to big kind of tribal wars and
1:13:24battles.
1:13:25And um
1:13:27there's not the possibility of just one
1:13:30individual
1:13:32causing these um
1:13:34wars and battles from the shadows.
1:13:37Yesterday,
1:13:38um other than potentially
1:13:41>> [clears throat]
1:13:41>> kind of like dark uh synchronized states
1:13:44potentially, where they have a
1:13:45synchronized state, but they're like all
1:13:47it's all kind of
1:13:49uh a dark synchronized state. Maybe
1:13:50those
1:13:51become the most powerful at the end of
1:13:53the day, actually.
1:13:54That's kind of
1:13:56the but
1:13:58the the tribal elements
1:14:01of what I originally like see though is
1:14:05that
1:14:07um
1:14:08just everything becoming more tied to
1:14:10the mesh network of the whole like
1:14:12structure.
1:14:13I kind of see like
1:14:15you know, those blockchains, how
1:14:16blockchains love to use like the
1:14:18networking the mesh network like
1:14:20I um
1:14:21visuals, stuff like that. So like when
1:14:24any kind of like
1:14:26um
1:14:27in any kind of conflict happens, it just
1:14:29stretches so far into these massive
1:14:31networks that it kind of prevents
1:14:34conflict in the same way that like
1:14:36the mutual assured destruction did.
1:14:40That's probably enough to say about that
1:14:42topic.
1:14:44>> Yeah, wonderful.
1:14:47I knew this is uh
1:14:49a topic that a lot of people want to
1:14:51chime in and discuss because it's quite
1:14:53problematic and
1:14:55I just wanted to bring um
1:14:57the question that maybe is going to pop
1:14:59up as well. Like we have surveillance.
1:15:02Like we have we are being surveilled
1:15:04effectively. And now there is even um
1:15:08an organization for example called Toka
1:15:11that people start talking about very
1:15:12recently
1:15:13who's capable of hacking into any CCTV,
1:15:16any camera you have. Like these guys
1:15:19probably know how to get into and
1:15:22they can even change whatever thing you
1:15:24have been doing and can I create an an
1:15:26evidence of something you didn't do.
1:15:30It's crazy technology. It's
1:15:32surveillance. How would how does Society
1:15:35protocol can invert that situation
1:15:37because there's people who already have
1:15:39the power to
1:15:41surveil you and to reveal everything you
1:15:43do.
1:15:44Meanwhile, you don't we humans, most
1:15:47people do not have any
1:15:50any surveillance technology to counter
1:15:52back and to do with the same thing as
1:15:55or to strike back effectively. This
1:15:58mutual assured destruction, how does it
1:16:00work with uh
1:16:02with an opponent that already sees
1:16:04everything you do effectively?
1:16:07>> Um I can try to talk about this. I mean
1:16:09it's it's These are complex like
1:16:11difficult issues that I can try my best
1:16:12to cover. They're they're actually like
1:16:14you know, this is about projecting into
1:16:16the future about how Society protocol
1:16:17would affect this situation. So the
1:16:19first thing that comes to my mind is
1:16:21that we have to go back to the topic
1:16:23that we talked about earlier about how
1:16:26hacks work in Society protocol, right?
1:16:28Which is when you hack a corporate
1:16:30system, when you hack like a device
1:16:32right now,
1:16:33that device is is um basically
1:16:39you're dealing with um
1:16:41software that is
1:16:44it's going to get quite complex
1:16:46basically, but you're dealing with
1:16:48corporate databases that have devices
1:16:49and then you're dealing with the IoT
1:16:51devices themselves and hacking those
1:16:53devices.
1:16:54In society protocol
1:16:56that IoT device would be a piece of
1:16:58property. So, that piece of property
1:17:00would um
1:17:03be owned by somebody and
1:17:06somebody they wouldn't be able to hack
1:17:08the whole whole corporate database of
1:17:10that property of like all the cameras,
1:17:12right? To be able to access all the
1:17:13cameras because everyone would have its
1:17:15own
1:17:16um private key cryptography to secure
1:17:19it, for example. That's kind of like
1:17:21where I start thinking, right? And then
1:17:23like
1:17:24is the is the when the property becomes
1:17:26NFTs and each one is like tied to an
1:17:28owner organization are they going to
1:17:31become harder to hack?
1:17:33You know, because what you're talking
1:17:34about is really a hacking campaign of
1:17:36them being able to hack into cameras and
1:17:38change them and that's not hard right
1:17:39now because the whole
1:17:41computing paradigm has been built
1:17:44not to be secure. They weren't trying to
1:17:47build it to be secure. They were all
1:17:48racing to make something that's
1:17:50effective and not really considering
1:17:51privacy because they just didn't care.
1:17:53The the corporations that created this
1:17:55thing, they were trying to make it more
1:17:57usable. And so, securing like all this
1:18:00technology at the current moment is
1:18:02really difficult. We have to move
1:18:04towards a different kind of cryptography
1:18:05to do that. And private key cryptography
1:18:08is pretty damn good at doing that.
1:18:10So, would every like camera be
1:18:15controlled by the private key of the
1:18:16owner, you know, and then you're talking
1:18:19about like
1:18:20it gets really complex, you know, you're
1:18:21talking about like changing the
1:18:22cryptography and the way that like these
1:18:25IoT devices interact with the you know,
1:18:28with
1:18:29with the world and also each other based
1:18:31on like public key cryptography. You're
1:18:34talking about like things that are way
1:18:35out in the future, but ultimately
1:18:38they would be everything would be more
1:18:40traceable.
1:18:41So, like you know,
1:18:43um
1:18:45it's it's possible like to make it all
1:18:47more secure. And to make it all more
1:18:49secure, we need more eyes on it. And to
1:18:51get more eyes on it, we need the
1:18:52cryptography of it more open to
1:18:54everybody. And to get it more open to
1:18:56everybody, we need to move the world
1:18:58from a centralized computer program to a
1:19:01distributed computer program.
1:19:03And when we move the world to a
1:19:04distributed computer program, that's
1:19:06when we can get the cryptography
1:19:08actually more transparent for everybody
1:19:09because right now all of this
1:19:12proprietary technology is hiding inside
1:19:14of data silos that are owned by
1:19:16corporations. And then other other
1:19:18actors like nation-state actors or
1:19:20private hackers or somebody else is
1:19:22hacking into those corporations,
1:19:23corrupting them
1:19:25in in kind of in the dark, right?
1:19:27Because the corporations don't show
1:19:28everybody else their data silos to begin
1:19:30with,
1:19:31hacking them,
1:19:32and then able to control the cameras.
1:19:37So,
1:19:37>> Yes, that's a great explanation.
1:19:41>> So, we need like
1:19:42Okay, I think if that's good, then I'll
1:19:44stop.
1:19:44>> Yeah, it's it's effectively the
1:19:46centralized architecture creating this
1:19:48whole situation. Wow.
1:19:51>> Yes, it's it's absolutely the
1:19:52centralized architecture creating this
1:19:54whole situation because what you have is
1:19:56in the centralized architecture always
1:19:58works one way. It's like you have a
1:19:59giant server where all the information
1:20:02goes, and that server is private and
1:20:04it's controlled by somebody.
1:20:05So, like anybody that hacks into that
1:20:07server gets like everything, and that
1:20:10the owner of that server is already kind
1:20:12of like exploiting the rest of society
1:20:14by keeping that data private.
1:20:17>> Yeah, that now makes a lot of sense, and
1:20:20I just realized how that's so true. I
1:20:23can see what
1:20:24what the point you're making as well.
1:20:26And that's that's so interesting.
1:20:29And
1:20:30yeah, I knew I knew this topic was
1:20:32really important and I really wanted to
1:20:34discuss and really happy also Eric just
1:20:36jump in and just
1:20:38give us a really good idea.
1:20:40Uh but we would like to move to a new
1:20:42topic maybe the debates about
1:20:45capitalism.
1:20:46>> Yeah, this bothers me. This actually
1:20:47bothers me a lot. I see this a lot and I
1:20:49think that people have been kind of
1:20:52rugged and
1:20:53this um
1:20:56this thing I really wish they would
1:20:57self-correct all over the internet, but
1:20:59I see constantly debates about
1:21:00capitalism and communism and all these
1:21:04like debates happening about these
1:21:07issues often times, you know, are we in
1:21:09late stage capitalism? Are we in this
1:21:11Um from my research I've done from my
1:21:13understanding of what's going on, we
1:21:15don't live in capitalism at all. We live
1:21:18in fascism.
1:21:19Why do we not live in capitalism? Why do
1:21:21we live in fascism? So to me
1:21:24and this came from the research I did
1:21:26for the energy is all you need article.
1:21:28To me capitalism is people carrying
1:21:30around value basically around with them,
1:21:32right? And trading it to
1:21:34uh
1:21:35acquire private property, right?
1:21:38Uh that's capitalism. That's something
1:21:40that developed after the
1:21:42in the 16, 1700s with the like with the
1:21:46British Empire. Mercantilism,
1:21:48capitalism, that's all something that
1:21:49developed in those years.
1:21:51So what we live in right now is a system
1:21:54of fiat currency since 1971.
1:21:58In the system of fiat currency, the
1:22:00people don't carry around any real
1:22:01capital because the central bank
1:22:04controls absolutely all the capital
1:22:05distribution in society.
1:22:07So
1:22:09the people don't carry around capital
1:22:10that can't be taken away. The capital
1:22:11doesn't belong to the people. They're
1:22:13not carrying around and trading it.
1:22:15The entire capital flow of society
1:22:17belongs to the central banks and this
1:22:19happened in when they put the entire
1:22:21world onto fiat currency. So when they
1:22:23put the entire world onto fiat currency,
1:22:25you to me it's absolutely fiat currency
1:22:28and capitalism are absolutely
1:22:30incompatible because the paper bills
1:22:32that we're trading are not actually
1:22:34capital. The the owner of the all the
1:22:36capital in the society is the central
1:22:38bank and they for example, they
1:22:40demonstrated this with COVID when they
1:22:42printed $4 trillion out of thin air and
1:22:44diluted everybody else's capital.
1:22:46Right? So by printing $4 trillion out of
1:22:49thin air, which was like 40% of all the
1:22:51dollar supply,
1:22:52um
1:22:54after COVID, they just like they
1:22:56affected absolutely everybody else's
1:22:58capital in the system. That's why it's
1:23:00not capitalism, it's fascism.
1:23:02Fascism is a merging of the corporations
1:23:05and the state.
1:23:06So by combining the central bank to
1:23:09control the the whole like distribution
1:23:12of value in society,
1:23:14what you get is actually a this fascist
1:23:17system where the the the state and the
1:23:19corporate interests, which is the
1:23:21closest to like the banks and the the
1:23:23big tech corporations, uh entirely
1:23:26control the capital flows. Like right
1:23:29now, the AI industry is entirely
1:23:31backstopped by the state.
1:23:34That's why it's they can do these deals
1:23:36for like $200 billion, $400 billion
1:23:38because it's all fake money, right? And
1:23:40if they if they fail, if they go
1:23:42bankrupt, what's going to happen is that
1:23:44they will get bailed out by the state.
1:23:46So the people don't have capital to
1:23:47trade. We're not carrying around any
1:23:49capital. We live in fascism. And so
1:23:51anytime somebody debates about
1:23:53capitalism, that's a system that came
1:23:55from the British Empire when they were
1:23:56carrying around gold and trading actual
1:23:58real capital. And to me, this issue
1:24:00relates to the issue right above it,
1:24:02which is that from what I'm looking at
1:24:05right now is that the whole capital gold
1:24:08system was basically monopolized
1:24:11after the Battle of Waterloo by the
1:24:13Rothschild family. And it seems like I'm
1:24:15not 100% sure on this, but it seems like
1:24:17they monopolized the whole gold system
1:24:19at that point. And that's when they
1:24:20started the international bond system
1:24:23where um they started lending this gold
1:24:25to
1:24:27uh
1:24:28countries basically in exchange for the
1:24:30countries giving them interest on it.
1:24:33And that evolved into where we are
1:24:36today, which is yeah, it's exactly what
1:24:38you're uh
1:24:40what's in the private chat. Um if you
1:24:42could please put that in in the public
1:24:44chat, which is capital it's privatized
1:24:47gains and socialized losses. So, you
1:24:49can't really do that in a capitalist
1:24:50system. You can't just privatize the
1:24:52gains and socialize the losses in a
1:24:54capitalist system. You can do it in a
1:24:55fascist system though. You can do it in
1:24:57a fascist system where the corporate and
1:24:59the state have merged into one entity,
1:25:01right? But if we actually had real
1:25:02capital, that would be impossible. So,
1:25:04like all these debates I see everybody
1:25:06debating about like is capitalism good
1:25:08or not, but nobody lives in capitalism.
1:25:10Everybody lives in fascism.
1:25:13Like I and I never see any debates about
1:25:15whether or not fascism is good or not.
1:25:17It it's kind of driving me a little bit
1:25:19off the wall actually because
1:25:21I'm just it's some kind of fairy tale
1:25:24land.
1:25:25>> Yeah, no, it's a psychological operation
1:25:27actually.
1:25:28And I have seen this case make about
1:25:30socialism
1:25:32as
1:25:33I wouldn't say a narrative, but rather
1:25:36they effectively created this dichotomy
1:25:38between
1:25:39two rivals and then they they just
1:25:41create this fake illusion and they just
1:25:44let people run with it and
1:25:46that way just they get uh effectively
1:25:50they get somebody to blame and nobody
1:25:53solving anything, not not even realizing
1:25:55what the hell is actually happening.
1:25:57This problem of capitalized gains,
1:25:59socialized losses, I have seen it so
1:26:00many times and it's
1:26:02it's obviously there, but until you kind
1:26:05of articulated this about fascism, I was
1:26:07like, "Oh god, this is true."
1:26:10Then the game of these manipulation
1:26:13tactics about the what the hell is
1:26:16capitalism, what the hell is communism.
1:26:19It's just a fake opposition. It's It's
1:26:21effectively controlled position.
1:26:23That's what it is. It And it's has been
1:26:25a psychological operation. Probably one
1:26:27of the most successful ones. We still
1:26:30see to this day debates about this.
1:26:33Nobody's has reached any conclusion.
1:26:35Nobody has solved the problem. And
1:26:38man, I just realized one of the most
1:26:40successful
1:26:42um
1:26:43operations probably
1:26:45that I have seen so far. It It's this
1:26:47whole dichotomy about
1:26:50are we living in real capitalism? No.
1:26:52This is actually like
1:26:54what you just described.
1:26:56>> Yeah, it's one of those things where
1:26:57like people got rugged.
1:26:59Oh, this capitalism thing like a long
1:27:01time ago.
1:27:02And it's driving me absolutely off the
1:27:04wall to hear them. Like I don't see
1:27:07anybody debating whether or not fascism
1:27:08is good.
1:27:10Like but
1:27:12that's like the debate that should be
1:27:14happening. And instead I I see all these
1:27:16debates about whether or not like
1:27:19late stage capitalism, you know, is
1:27:21capitalism is good. Well, it's better
1:27:22than communism. Like it's Nobody lives
1:27:24in capitalism.
1:27:26Yeah.
1:27:27>> [laughter]
1:27:28>> What are you What are you all talking
1:27:29about? It's driving me absolutely like
1:27:30off the wall actually. But it it's
1:27:32something I had to do research to
1:27:33understand too. But like the this thing
1:27:36pops up all the time.
1:27:37Like
1:27:38Yeah.
1:27:39>> Yeah. No, it does. It does. It does. It
1:27:41pops all the time. And
1:27:44I can see your point now.
1:27:47And before we run out of time, I would
1:27:49you like to mention what it would you
1:27:50mean by this? You know, the the Russia
1:27:53banning peer-to-peer transactions.
1:27:55>> It looks like Russia is going to ban
1:27:57peer-to-peer transactions. I mean, which
1:27:59means that you will not be able Russian
1:28:01citizens will not be able to trade
1:28:03self-custodial
1:28:05from their self-custodial wallets
1:28:06without going to their central bank or
1:28:09some kind of like entity like that. Um
1:28:13I mean
1:28:15to me, I mean, so authoritarian regimes
1:28:19and I mean, so you know my opinion, it
1:28:21just means to me anyway, that's not
1:28:23important, that part's not important.
1:28:24But what I'm saying is is that
1:28:27once you take away people's ability to
1:28:29communicate freely
1:28:30using um
1:28:32kind of like
1:28:33curbs on free speech
1:28:35and once you take away people's ability
1:28:37to trade value freely
1:28:39using the curbs on
1:28:41um
1:28:43the um
1:28:45the value transfers, right? The
1:28:46self-custodial value transfers, right?
1:28:50I mean
1:28:51so people cannot
1:28:53speak freely or trade freely.
1:28:56To me, that's when you get to like
1:28:58slavery. Like to me, that's about when
1:29:00you get to slavery.
1:29:01Like
1:29:02oh, I can't actually go with my neighbor
1:29:04and trade value with them?
1:29:06And I can't go to my neighbor and I
1:29:08can't talk with them?
1:29:10That's the line where I think that like
1:29:13it looks like very open slavery.
1:29:17I don't know. Anybody else is welcome to
1:29:19chime in, but
1:29:20that's where when you start taking away
1:29:23people's ability to kind of coordinate
1:29:24without you, right?
1:29:26>> Oh, yeah.
1:29:27>> basic things that people would just
1:29:29naturally do, but you're kind of banning
1:29:31them and you're saying, "No, everything
1:29:33has to go through us through this
1:29:34centralized middleman. We are your
1:29:36master. Your master tells you how you
1:29:39can talk and how you can trade value.
1:29:41You cannot trade value amongst
1:29:42yourselves and you cannot communicate
1:29:44amongst yourselves. And um
1:29:46there's probably some other kind of
1:29:47pillars of coordination that get into
1:29:49that same favor, but that's what I'm
1:29:51seeing kind of like
1:29:53the line gets crossed into something
1:29:56very um
1:29:57like that's no longer like human to or
1:30:01where we where we are in evolution, it's
1:30:03it's going way backwards to a time of
1:30:06the past basically which is just
1:30:09directly like
1:30:11>> Mhm. Back to the Pharaoh effectively.
1:30:14>> Yeah, back to the Pharaoh effectively.
1:30:16It's it's a line that like
1:30:19um
1:30:20Yeah, I mean
1:30:22But that's what they're doing with the
1:30:24whole country of Russia which
1:30:28Yeah, to me just means that the crown
1:30:30does not favor them. And some people
1:30:32know what that means, some people won't.
1:30:34But
1:30:35um
1:30:36That's what it means, you know? And so
1:30:37but imagine how far back any country
1:30:40that can't like freely communicate or
1:30:42can't freely trade value or transfer
1:30:44value is going to be set back.
1:30:47That's why I say they're not favored
1:30:49because they're
1:30:50they're
1:30:51um
1:30:52they're hemorrhaging
1:30:54uh young kind of like
1:30:56men basically in the war and then also
1:30:59locking down the country to a very like
1:31:02So
1:31:04yeah, not to get too much into politics
1:31:06but like
1:31:07um that's a very very dystopian kind of
1:31:10like
1:31:11reality to live in.
1:31:14>> Yeah, definitely.
1:31:18>> And
1:31:19>> Yes.
1:31:20>> um If that gets normalized, I mean it's
1:31:25um
1:31:26Like I don't see it getting normalized
1:31:27but I think um
1:31:28>> Yeah, it's starting to get more and more
1:31:30evasive.
1:31:30>> Clearly. Yeah. So
1:31:34I just think that that's an important
1:31:35issue to
1:31:39Both on the free speech side of it and
1:31:41on the free value of transfer, free
1:31:43transfer value. That's the world has
1:31:44always had that. Like money has always
1:31:46been a bearer instrument.
1:31:48It's very Oh, it's only very in the past
1:31:50like 50 years when digital banking has
1:31:53started controlling value flows outside
1:31:55of its holder.
1:31:57And so it's kind of a blip in history.
1:31:59Throughout all of history, money has
1:32:01been a bearer instrument.
1:32:03>> Yeah.
1:32:04>> But yeah, that's all I got to say about
1:32:06that and we're out of time.
1:32:09>> Yeah, that's true. That time this time
1:32:11really
1:32:12passed really fast. I'm I'm excited that
1:32:14the conversation was really interesting
1:32:16and
1:32:18we finally cleared out a few topics on
1:32:20around privacy that were just lingering
1:32:22there and
1:32:24now that it's really clear now what you
1:32:26mean and how the society protocol solved
1:32:28the problem.
1:32:30Awesome. Thank you guys for joining in.
1:32:33Uh thank you guys for leaving some
1:32:34comments.
1:32:36This call has been quite interesting. Uh
1:32:38thank you Eric also for joining.
1:32:41Thank you Ashton. This has been quite an
1:32:43enlightening call.
1:32:46I hope everybody got something out of it
1:32:48and let's see you guys on the next call.
1:32:52Yeah. And on the Discord channels as
1:32:54well. See you guys. Take care.
1:32:56>> See you guys.
1:32:58Bye.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Live Community Call (16 Oct 26) Fri by Society Protocol, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 14,509 words across 2,576 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.