The British billionaire, one of the creators of the world’s most valuable cryptocurrency after Bitcoin, offered an optimistic outlook on the future of technology.
The British billionaire Gavin Wood is one of the founders of Ethereum, the world’s most valuable cryptocurrency after Bitcoin, and of Polkadot, sponsor of Inter Miami.
In Bali, Indonesia, as part of a gathering organised by Polkadot Blockchain Academy, where technologists and leaders from 39 countries actively learnt to use Blockchain, he gave an exclusive interview offering an optimistic outlook on the future of technology.
Journalist: We have been hearing lately about the upcoming launch of JAM, something you defined as a “universal computer.” Could you explain exactly what it entails?
Gavin Wood: It is essentially an update to Polkadot that will allow, beyond technical details, many more applications to be built on our platform, and will also make it possible for many more people to understand our technology.
As you know, this is a crucial point, and partly for that reason we drive this academy, the Polkadot Blockchain Academy. We need more developers to learn to use our protocol, and with JAM, the Join-Accumulated Machine, we are going to incentivise more independent programmers, students and practitioners to adopt the type of code I wrote.
Those who dare to use this new technology will receive great rewards. That is how we try to drive the mass adoption of this innovation.
J: Statistics show that Blockchain users number between 300 and 500 million worldwide. Do you believe that as long as Blockchain continues to be associated with cryptocurrencies and speculation, we will not see truly mass adoption?
GW: Absolutely. That is why, since I founded Parity Technologies a decade ago, I have been working to develop solutions with the remaining 8 billion people in mind. He laughs.
The thing is, we all know the potential of Blockchain, but it remains a difficult technology for what you tend to call “ordinary people.” At the same time, those people are losing confidence in democracy.
J: Do you think that Decentralised Autonomous Organisations, DAOs, can be a response to the current crisis of trust?
GW: Yes. Look, there are a couple of reasons why I keep trying to innovate in technology. On one hand, my purpose is to create technological solutions that make my life better and, if possible, the lives of others. But in a sense, I also do it because I believe that today the world needs this new way of designing technological products.
We did not have this in mind when I was born, in 1980. But in truth, applications and platforms determine the way we relate to society. They in turn feed off the mass use we make of their solutions. Even now with Artificial Intelligence, we are still talking about algorithms that feed off the information we provide them.
Now, if we think about banks or companies, today we know that their most valuable asset is the network they have built, referring to their customers, but those entities are always in the middle, as the hub of every bond between human beings, and human beings are always feeding those networks.
We must evidently acknowledge that there is a present-day version of what philosophers, hundreds of years ago, called the “social contract.” Our current society resembles a countless number of intertwined social contracts.
An example: many times, when we acquire technology products, we sign licence contracts of dozens of pages, whose clauses could not even be clearly explained by a lawyer in court. Is it reasonable that we must do this? No, of course not. Above all because, described in this way, this revalidation of the social contract remains opaque, unintelligible, for citizens, who, if they were to demand clarity, risk being left outside the system.
I believe this is what contributes to the disillusionment people feel today. That is why the technology I am building brings clarity and minimises the number of rules imposed on us.
J: You try to create technologies that rid us of intermediaries, but do you not think it is difficult for people to imagine a society without those intermediaries, which are ultimately governments or companies?
GW: Yes, I totally agree. It is complicated to imagine when we are sailing calm waters. However, that is not currently the reality. The waters are turbulent, and I believe people are opening their eyes, willing to try new things.
Also, paraphrasing a thinker whose name I cannot now recall, it is foolish to change the system by fighting against it. It is far better to create a new paradigm and let things evolve and eventually follow their path towards disappearance.
J: Recently the American parliament passed the Genius Act, regulating the use of stablecoins. How do you analyse the use of that class of cryptocurrency, and what do you think of this type of action by the public sector?
GW: Well, I have the impression that some rulers have good intentions, others are ignorant, and then there are those who seek to benefit themselves and their families. Laughter. Now, the stablecoin issue is interesting. From my point of view, that type of cryptocurrency offers an escape from the traditional financial system. They are, shall we say, a halfway point, because they run on Blockchain but are pegged to the value of currencies such as the dollar or the euro. When transacting with stablecoins there is less friction, fewer fees, and usually more freedom for the individual who holds them.
Now, I would say that this last point is actually debatable when you compare it with using a 20-dollar bill, in the sense of how cash works. Because at the end of the day a 20-dollar bill cannot be blocked or expropriated by intermediaries, whereas a stablecoin account can be blocked and the money expropriated.
At the end of the day, we must remember that what politicians call stablecoins is generally nothing more than a bank account, with the difference that instead of using your handwritten signature or a standard ID you use a cryptographic key.
In that regard, our Web3 philosophy is that individuals must become agents. Editor’s note: Wood uses the terms “agency” and “agent” which, in the British philosophical tradition, refer to what we commonly understand as the Subject, in the sense of the individual who makes decisions with freedom and responsibility.
So when we use something like USDT or USDC, rather than Bitcoin, to take an example of pure crypto, what we are effectively doing is giving that power back to the bank, because, as I said, and perhaps not many people know this, the bank has the ability to arbitrarily block or expropriate USDC and USDT through procedures linked to user identification and anti-money laundering.
Now, if we are talking about cryptocurrencies whose stability derives from pure cryptography, that is the algorithmic ones known as DAI, then we have something different, because those cannot be expropriated by any bank. That said, I would like to underline that, for me, if someone wants to use USDT as an improved bank account, so to speak, that is fine from a practical standpoint. But is it contributing to a better world? No.
J: The Indonesian government is an example of digitalisation in the Southeast Asian region. What is your perspective on Latin America, and what challenges do you currently see in terms of governments and technology?
GW: Generally, in my experience, politicians try to maintain the status quo. They are there to keep people happy. This breeds a particular mindset, unfortunately, which is above all technophobic, because technology means change and change brings risk, and that brings us closer to failing and people no longer being content.
Technological innovation always implies a certain level of risk, so it does not appear that politicians will be the ones to drive this type of initiative, although it is true that on occasion bureaucrats have technology advisers who, even in the interest of maintaining power, counsel them to use certain technologies.
The thing is, those technologies they recommend are generally no less than 30 years old, because the technologists who advise governments are usually older people. He smiles and apologises for the stereotype. I actually had experience with this myself. Years ago I worked in military technology for a brief period and met those in charge. They were good people, but they are not the ones who will make a real difference for citizens.
Let me give an example: Google launched its portfolio of solutions around 20 years ago. If that same product technology had been incorporated at that time by the state to simplify tax payments, or obtaining a driving licence, or casting a vote, it would have been an extraordinary experience for society. But at that moment, Google was new, so nobody in government was willing to innovate in that way.
J: What parallel do you draw between that era and the present?
GW: The disconnect that existed back then between rulers and those working at Google creating solutions is, I believe, more or less the same as the one that exists today between governments and Web3 technologies. My work consists of building bridges that allow civil society and governments to adopt the technologies I build, which may be seen as risky even though they have been sufficiently tested, to the point that in Polkadot there have been no attacks on the more than 6 billion dollars held there in DOT.
However, I must be fair on this point. The truth is that in the long term I see no incompatibility between governments and technology. In fact, I want to highlight the experience of Singapore, for example, with whose leaders I am in contact. But in general, the use of this technology requires a certain effort on my part, and above all education. That connects to the Polkadot Blockchain Academy, because through it we show decision-makers why it is better to use this technology.
Source: c5n.com