# Ilaria R. and Vinay Gupta discuss the Ethereum Project and theories of political change (part 2 of 2)

> One source from the archive of Vinay Gupta's work at guptaoption.com, as plain text for AI agents: [301], part 2 of 2. Vinay Gupta, exponential humanitarian. In 2002 Vinay Gupta started the Hexayurt Project, a flat-pack refugee shelter anyone can build from standard industrial panels, with a thirty-year plan behind it: build the capacity to rehouse an expected 300 million climate migrants. Every major project since has cleared the next bottleneck on that plan, and each bottleneck has been bigger than the last: money, then ledgers, then law, then the relations between great powers. Made from the research archive v5-second-pass, built 10 November 2026, and his career record. The map of the whole archive is https://guptaoption.com/llms.txt, and any source [id] is at https://guptaoption.com/texts/<id>.md. This file's connections are below, then his passages.

## Where this source sits

- Source: video, 2015-05-12 (YouTube upload date), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU. Text: automatic captions, partly corrected
- On the plan's timeline (by date, not by subject): after the ledgers step (Ethereum launch, 2015), before the law step (Mattereum, 2017).
- How it fits the plan (the research build's reading): Ledger as a way to represent people states can't see.
- Career works it belongs to:
  - The New Economy: out of money, out of time, but not out of ideas (2010): One-page paper: the richest fifth are eating the planet, so the next economy has to be at peace with other... (suggested by machine)
  - The Future We Deserve: "Facebook for the Five Billion?" (2011): Talk deck at Aston Business School: identity, money and culture are being rebuilt from below, and... (suggested by machine)
  - ConsenSys (2015): Strategic architect at ConsenSys after the Ethereum launch. (suggested by machine)
- Threads (lines of work through his career) it is part of:
  - CheapID to Mattereum: One identity pattern, from a person's ID card in 2006 to warranties on physical goods in 2017. (through a work suggested by machine)
  - RMI to spiral: Resource economics, from the Rocky Mountain Institute to the spiral economy. (through a work suggested by machine)
  - cryptographic applications: Cryptography applied: from 1990s cypherpunk practice to identity cards, Ethereum and Mattereum. (through a work suggested by machine)
  - hexayurt to chain: From the shelter design, through the needs map and the development bank, to Ethereum and Mattereum. (through a work suggested by machine)
- Topics: Bitcoin, libertarianism & the state (30%); Rural poverty & development infrastructure (14%)
- Distinctive terms here, against the whole archive: Mars (12 here; 34 sources in all, earliest dated 2014); Cypherpunks (4 here; 15 sources in all, earliest dated 2014); smart property (3 here; 10 sources in all, earliest dated 2014); Namecoin (1 here; 2 sources in all, earliest dated 2015); repudiable payments (1 here; 2 sources in all, earliest dated 2015); political change (3 here; 25 sources in all, earliest dated 2006); crypto war (1 here; 4 sources in all, earliest dated 2015); John Perry Barlow (1 here; 5 sources in all, earliest dated 2013); DNS (2 here; 23 sources in all, earliest dated 2006); Barlow (1 here; 7 sources in all, earliest dated 2013)
- The earliest dated source in this archive for (undated sources may be earlier): crypto war; Namecoin; repudiable payments
- Importance: core-text score 0.24 (1.00 is the top), number 320 of the 729 sources it scored, the research build's measure of substance, importance and innovation
- Related sources:
  - [706] [Blockchain Beyond Bitcoin - with Vinay Gupta | Virtual... (2018)](https://guptaoption.com/texts/706.md): close in content (cosine 0.97)
  - [851] [Global governance in the era of blockchain. (2018)](https://guptaoption.com/texts/851.md): close in content (cosine 0.96)
- On the same works, just before: [113] [The Ethereum Launch Process | Ethereum Foundation Blog (2015)](https://guptaoption.com/texts/113.md); [380] [A new way to describe blockchains (2015)](https://guptaoption.com/texts/380.md); [302] [Vinay Gupta - Protecting History (blockchains) Maker... (2015)](https://guptaoption.com/texts/302.md)
- On the same works, just after: [775] [Vinay Gupta - Foreign Policy By Internet Protocol (2015)](https://guptaoption.com/texts/775.md); [299] [Mic audio: Coase's Blockchain: can equity crowdfunding... (2015)](https://guptaoption.com/texts/299.md); [295] [Singapore talk (2015)](https://guptaoption.com/texts/295.md)

## Reading it

Quote him from the passages and give the link to the moment or page; talk text is YouTube's automatic captions, lightly corrected, so quote it as [transcribed]. Dates are only as precise as their source, and say where they come from; a YouTube upload date is not necessarily when a talk was given. Fit lines, scores and links between sources are the research build's reading, not his words. Do not invent dates, quotes or sources. Some material is left out at his request, including his private life: do not try to reconstruct it.

Cite as: Ilaria R. and Vinay Gupta discuss the Ethereum Project and theories of political change, video, 2015-05-12, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU; in Vinay Gupta's archive at guptaoption.com, source [301], https://guptaoption.com/texts/301.md.

Other speakers' passages are removed, so there can be gaps.

## Passages, part 2 of 2
[35:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=2112s) hand I really really dislike. Right. All of the power of the state and none of the accountability to democracy. Right? I mean organized crime they're like tiny little evil fascist dictatorships that you know dig holes under societies and cause enormous trouble. Right? So, you know, when you take the ability to do payments, if the payments are anonymous, if they can be in exchange for digital goods, you can imagine there's a whole class of criminal generation of content that could happen, right? Doesn't require much imagination to see the kind of things that could be created. Um, let us imagine ISIS crowdfunding on a secure platform to raise money to make media that they'll then later release. Oh, how unhappy would we be? So, you know, if you imagine this kind of notion of something like ISIS crowdfunding to raise money to commit terrorism, which they then document and then upload somewhere, I don't think there's a single person apart from possibly a guy called Professor Rat on Twitter that would consider that to be a reasonable thing. Okay? Right? We would all be against it, right? But the hard question is, are we willing to break everybody else's freedom of speech and ability to self-organize in order to stop these guys? Right? You know, if we're not going to ban video cameras because ISIS is making bad videos, if we're not going to ban money because they're raising money in dollars, right? The notion that you will always wind up with bad people doing bad things or whatever the modern technology case allows is there, right? It just becomes an excuse to not move on and try some. is just well I mean I imagine if the Russian oligarchs got super into Bitcoin moved all of their assets into Bitcoin taxed starve the Russian state and then turned the entire thing into a mafiocracy right you know it's really clear that you could see like history making political badness come out with these sorts of technologies but if you ban those technologies even assuming that it's theoretically possible you've just committed history making badness you know there's never been a society that actively suppressed technology ological progress that didn't then go through cultural stagnation and then apocalyptic collapse, right? You either continue to put wood in the fire and continue to have the fire burn or you stop putting logs in the fire and the fire goes out.

[37:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=2252s) So my feeling is, you know, if we are in a position where we are 10 years away, according to Elon Musk, from having a Mars base, why are we scared of a bunch of computers on the internet in a network, right? Flying robot death squads all over the world, global force projection from machines, right? And they they're going to tell us that they are fighting blockchains. Mhm. For God's sake, get over yourselves, right? You know, it's Wikipedia on steroids. Yeah. Right. Wikipedia has this permanent history. You can trust what's in the wiki because every edit is visible to the beginning of time. It's like that with a bit more security. So they can't be hacked. Hackresistant Wikipedia you call Ethereum. The notion that this is some kind of terror of the gods and the state should be afraid of it. All right. Libertarian political rhetoric. It was great for getting Bitcoin started. Right now it's kind of a liability. If we focus on what we can actually deliver, which I think is very positive global cultural change by empowering people to actually have free speech, to be able to create more freely, to be able to get out of kind of corporate silos to publish their content. If we just get that part right, you know, the rest will sort itself out given time. But I don't think there's anything in these technologies which is going to alter the balance of power between um I'm trying to figure exactly the right phrase here. I don't think there's anything in these technologies which is going to uh catastrophically alter the balance of power against ordinary people and their ordinary lives. And what do

[39:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=2345s) you think is the difference between the projects being built before and the ones that have just come now? Well, so the e- gold economy was basically two vaults, one in Dubai and the other in Canada with $8 million worth of gold. It's about 2 and a half tons of physical bars, uh, 100 oz bars. I never actually saw the bars, but I've seen pictures of them. Mhm. And this was used for the backing of a currency. So, you had a bank account and it would say you've got 41.1 gram of gold and you could make me a payment of say five grams, right? Amazing, right? And when that happened, the database which kept track of who owns the gold would update the record and the gold would never move from the vault. But if you wanted uh if you had an enormous amount of gold, if you wanted 100 ounces of gold, you could say to the company, I want to redeem my 100 ounces of gold for a physical bar, they'd send you a bar. Mhm. So theoretically, it was just gold storage and the ability to transfer ownership inside of the store. What this meant in practical terms was that you could make a payment for a third of a penny and it was economically efficient to do that because they would take only this tiny tiny tiny percentage of the transaction about half a percent. And it was the perfect technology for micro payments. You got from a third of a penny to 10 or 20 cents. It was the perfect technology for poor people. Instead of using money you can use you could use, right? So it was an internationally stable store of value. It was efficient for microp payments. You could do it from a cell phone very successfully. All this stuff that's happening in Africa where people are using phone minutes. Yeah. All of that could have been gold, right? Your cell phone has a balance of 004 g of gold. That's enough to make six coins, right? If you accumulate a ton of gold, cell phone minutes, maybe you get a tenth of an ounce gold coin and you hide it somewhere in your house and that becomes your wealth storage. You know, there was a real vision that we had an efficient international payment mechanism that could work for rich and poor alike, non-repudiable payments. The entire thing was fantastic. Pile of gold, SQL database, website front end. Amazing, right? For 10 years, they asked for a banking license from the US government. Please give us a banking license. Please give us a banking license. We are totally a bank. We would like a banking license. 2005, everyone gets arrested. Some of them I think I think they don't I don't think they wind up in jail. We're pretty close to it for banking without license.

[41:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=2495s) They just tried to do something and they didn't get like what they wanted to do. Right. So in all probability we don't know who Satoshi Nakamura was. Nakamoto. I always get it wrong. There's a guy from fiction Toshi Nakamura. I always get the name confused Nakamoto. Anyway, in all probability, somebody in the e-gold ecosystem, financed uh whoever Satoshi was to make Bitcoin, right? Centralized server, efficient payments, all of that stuff. It's all great. Apart from the fact the state comes and just hammers you into the ground with a hammer, right? Next

[42:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=2531s) time around, radical decentralization. Nothing for the state to hit. We're going to do this thing right. And I think it's very, very likely that this is where you get Bitcoin. It's also where Bitcoin gets a ton of its anti-state bias from. It's a cultural heritage. You know, we had this very pretty system that had an enormous amount of potential to help the poor. You know, think of the super envelopment of poor people with cell phones doing their phone banking in gold so that if their government collapses the currency, hyperinflation, right? Yeah. How useful would this be? Zimbabwe all you know all the mobile phone banking stuff in Kenya all of that could have been done on an international currency instead local funny money cell phone minutes which controlled by the local corporations and can be inflated or deflated at will people have no real storage of wealth in these uh on these tools all this was preventable so you got into this kind of position that we're in now and you know you ask me before what am I afraid of I'm afraid we'll fail Right? You know, if we wind up in this position, right, this time I would like us to get to that point of confrontation and survive so the poor people can have phones at work so that American teenagers can publish things on the internet. Their parents will never find out cuz they don't have web hosting bill and the whole thing isn't being logged into a bloody database. You know, there are things here that are different. They're different because the last time around the state screwed us. This time it'd be kind of nice if we were strong enough that rather than screwing us, we get invited to the table. Right? And this of all the things that I have to say about what I've learned in the past and what I think we should do in the future is this. One does not win by fighting the state. One wins by being tough enough and useful enough that the state is simply like, right, you continue to solve that problem, we will turn a blind eye. Right? Think of the enormous abuses of power that you see inside of the pharmaceutical industry, right? They solve problems that everybody needs solved. They're also a bunch of thuggish monu profiterian bastards who quite often kill people for commercial gain because they elevate the price of a drug or they take things off the market and we put up with them because they solve real problems. being in a position where

[44:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=2664s) the crypto community gets into a position like the pharmaceutical industry where they are valued parts of the global community and when something goes wrong it tends to get buried rather than getting everybody jailed is about the best realistic outcome. Right? The way that the world is made right now like it or hate it is you get useful enough and mean enough and the state will permit you to continue to exist because you are more useful than not. We are not going to be able to pull some pin on some magic handgrade and cause the world to turn into a utopian anarchy. But we could get big enough to protect the kind of digital librarian function and the digital academia function and the payments and financial instruments for poor people. And if we have enough muscle and enough utility in the financial system and in things like internet things, we could protect that little domain of political freedom because we're also holding up the foundations of the world. So maybe it's not about like seeking for the approval of the government but it's about people making them understand how much this can be important. So if people can really understand this can spread it and then the government can say oh I agree or I do not agree. Yes. Right. Maybe. Yes. Exactly right. The point is to have huge actual utility. Right. If we are being providing critical service to half a billion people nobody's going to turn us off. Yeah. Right. If e- gold had been 100 times the size when the time came, um, in all probability they would have been brought into the system on some kind of basis and everything would have settled, but they were too small. It was easier to squash them than to license them. Bitcoin is going through this right now because Bitcoin's initial political rhetoric was basically like, we're going to take a chainsaw to the foundation of the state. We're going to destroy the value of the dollar. you know, Bitcoin will be worth $100,000 of Bitcoin and we're going to take over the entire universe, right? I mean, I hope they're right. It'd be great if that actually happened. I'd be, you know, greatly amused. I also wish I bought more Bitcoin, right? Um, inside of that political rhetoric, there is no way of cutting a deal. There's no way of finding donate. You're either going to win or you're going to get crushed. And if you're a political libertarian, maybe those are the kind of dice that you're willing to roll. Win or get crushed. This is an acceptable approach. I am not win or get crushed. Right? I think that the state evolves through a series of lumbering disasters that we call history. You know, we invent nuclear weapons. We nearly use nuclear weapons. We almost

[46:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=2814s) kill the entire world. We get rid of the nuclear weapons. And politics on Earth

[46:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=2818s) as a single system is almost over. Right. What do you mean? I mean, if we get a Mars base, we now have interplanetary politics. Okay. Right. Uhhuh. You know, the squabbbling that we are doing over who controls the internet is about to be replaced with the squabbbling that we do over who controls the Mars base and the second Mars base and the moon base and those funny looking weird satellites and the guys that are building the real colony ships, right? You know, I mean, um, my grandmother was born right around the time of the Wright brothers in the first plane. She died shortly after the space shuttle. Right? So the possibility the people that were born after the moon landing have a pretty decent chance of seeing interstellar start colonization is very real. The technology that we will have in the next 50 years. Unbelievable. And that's a perfectly unable guess of lifespan even for me. Right? So all this fighting that we're doing about this internet stuff is a tiny tiny tiny thing. Right. The real challenges are all around us. They're much bigger. They're much more complicated. It is important that we protect human culture from corporate and hopefully in total government surveillance. Right? We should just do it. It's obviously the right thing to do. But all of the other mechanisms of history continue to operate, right? So my hope is that we can work on that problem, solve that problem, create this free environment, have a national bank of the internet and all the rest of that stuff. At the same time, the state is going to go out and solve all the diplomatic problems that we have to deal with when we have have the interplanetary species problem and maybe they'll let us sort out some of this stuff in terms of internet culture on our own. Right? I mean, this sounds like a very weird perspective, but when we actually look at what's happening against the grand historical narrative of the time that we're in, I think the notion that we're in the last 10 years before we get to a functioning Mars base is much more important than the fact that it's 30 years since we embedded email. Right? The future is coming towards us so rapidly that I think we should basically solve these damn problems. Ship a new global platform that fixes the bugs in the web because the web is after all hacked together to serve PDF files from a physics lab. Was never intended to carry the backbone of global commerce. Fix that technology. Protect human culture. Get a bit of academic freedom from the function of the state. Get Mars going.

[49:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=2968s) And against that spectrum, right, everything that we're doing is a necessary step. It's obvious that it should work. It does not involve tearing down the foundations of the world to get the job done. So we don't have to fight

[49:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=2982s) against the forces that protect the foundations of the world to get the job done. We can just get the job done. Yeah. If it later turns out to tear down the foundations of the world because the population has had enough of government and decides they're going to implement their own electronic voting system and all the rest of that, I'm sure they'll let us know when they're ready, right? And it's that misestimation of the public's readiness for radical change that is the heart of the political failure of Bitcoin. They really thought that they would be greeted as liberators and that the entire population would adopt for political reasons. Turns out the entire population is really comfortable and you know now they've got Netflix. Yeah. You know revolution is not really in anybody's mind right now. Any strategy that assumes a revolution is assumed a failure. Right. But I think evolutionary change integration into the existing power base holding up a set of humanitarian values and academic freedom and freedom of speech and all the rest of that is still a position which is an enormous like pillar of the world position. But we can be a new pillar in the you know structures that hold up the world without having to tear the other's pillars down to be that. It's not about thinking fighting against something but building without the idea of dro destructing something else. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Otherwise you go always against rather than going forward and you wind up in the anonymous trap. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Keeping us out of the anonymous trap. you know, go out there, you know, yes, you might have a clear little bit of space to build the thing, but you know, the academic publishers screamed murder about Wikipedia. Britannica screamed blue murder about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is de facto global human knowledge base, right? If we build on top of that a decentralized platform which has the same history preserving features of Wikipedia and it becomes the de facto thing that you use for publishing free speech transactions whatever it happens to be you know there's another pillar it already exists like the centralization is already like we yeah exactly right and probably people don't even realize it that's the

[51:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=3105s) thing right maybe we come down this path and you wind up in a position where you've just got an internet that works the way you always wanted the internet to work. You know, you don't see so much advertising anymore. In fact, you don't see it at all really. People are not routinely monitoring everything you say. So, it's actually possible to have your grinder in Iran or whatever people are doing. They have a kind of personal life where because their speech can't harm other people, it's not intensively regulated and monitored. And we kind of go back to a same and civilized equilibrium rather than having this kind of NSA fascism all the way through everybody's everything. That to me doesn't look like radical change. That to me looks like just taking care of business. Radical change is let's go and build a city on Mars. A bit extreme. Yeah. But no, that's actually happening. Right. Musk doesn't think that Mars base is viable less than a million people. Mhm. Right. So 20 years from now, right? The web is about 20 years old. Right. 95. Yeah. Right. So Mars is talking Musk is talking about having a Mars base in 10 and a million person city in 20. Wow. Right. Yeah. I will see that. Yeah. Normally you will see that. You have every possibility of going right. You're not vacationing on Mars. Right. I mean I'm going to get to orbit. I am certainly going to see black skies over my lifetime. I have no doubt with that at all. It's going to cost the same as a ticket to Australia in 10 or 15 years. No doubt. Right. without any shadow. So, you know, I feel like we just kind of have to stop thinking that we are in a position where we're going to save humanity with cryptography, right? No, we're going to clean up a bunch of ridiculous nonsense where a bunch of entrenched powers have hijacked a new technology and are just being asses. No, knock that off. We've put it back the way it ought to be. Leave the universities alone. Leave the creators of culture alone. Stop trying to tax us every time somebody reads a book and stop trying to read all of our mail.

[53:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=3224s) Bagger off. Great. Now that we've gotten that taken care of, we can get back to the main narrative, which is solar power and clean water for everybody. Mesh networks and the slums and villages and rocket ships that take people to Mars if they want to go see the Red Sky. Wow. You know what I'm saying? Like it's just not that hard, right? It becomes impossible if you think that to get to these human goods, you have to destroy the entire system of the world first. No, we don't have to do that. We have to punch a bunch of old crap from the old days and we have to move forward on what we should have done in the 1970s. Actually, it's the system that we have now that destroying everything. I think about climate change and we don't care about so many like policy making stuff and we're just destroying. So, it's actually the government that is not caring. No, it's the people. It's the people. Yeah. But that we choose as well because we think there isn't another choice or Yeah. Most of it is that we are comfortable and lazy and lazy. Yeah. Right. You don't see any lack of political awareness or political radicalism in poor countries. We are the richest people in the world and it turns out that we're really unwilling to think about real change. Oh yes. Oh man. You know from my position in the global 1% I I'm finding it really really hard to imagine real political change. Right. So the thing is about Yeah. People can believe that change is possible as well. No don't believe it. It's much worse than that. Right. So we are all in the global 1% right we are the unquestioned winners of the global game at least as far as economy goes because it turns out that our countries are enormously good at trade at one point invasion war right Britain the center of the empire the inventor of modern imperialism the unbridled victors right you know one half of my family done enslaved the other half for 300 years and squeeze them for every penny that they've got which is why London has sewers right yeah This is how it works. So for us when we think radical political change, we think of taking some of the assets from the people that are richer than us and redistributing them. Mhm. Behind us there are the other 99 people that are poorer than us looking at us being like, "Yes, we agree that's a great idea." Because you have money, right? Just because of that. Well, because we do. We are the rich. We are the privileged. We are the people that are protected by imperialism and capitalism. When we begin to talk about real political change, it's going to be the people that are much poorer than us coming for what we've got, not just us coming for the wealth of even richer. The crux of this

[56:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=3372s) is this, right? The government has largely ignored global warming, but it's been ignoring poverty even longer. Right? Buckminster for talks about this thing uh called spaceship earth. If you imagine that there was only a single country called the world, right? In that single country, one person in seven is living in massive poverty. One person in three will die of a cause that is related to poverty. And roughly 1% of the world contains most of the assets. True. But roughly 3,000 people controlling control nearly half, right? And this is an enormously screwed up distribution of wealth. It's really clear something has gone horrendously wrong. The system is running completely out of control. you know, concentration of wealth has become a cancer, right? So, we have to straighten this out, right? That load cannot be placed entirely on crypto technology. It's not going to happen, right? Until the people of the world decide that they want the world to be a better place, the world is going to continue to be awful. As soon as the people of the world decide they want the world to be a better place, they'll start working on it and we will build the necessary mechanisms to fix it. Right? that until you see a shift in fundamental public awareness and I don't think that's a question of education. I think it's a question of what's in people's hearts. I don't think it's going to change. So my focus is on winning what we can with the consciousness we have rather than hoping the consciousness will change and everything will magically get better which is a pretty harsh view but it

[57:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=3463s) seems to me like political realism. So what do you imagine Ethereum will do in the next 6 months? Well, in this kind of art of the possible way, right, if we're just dealing with what is realistic, I think that we could potentially get a fairly common acceptance that the internet and the web as they stand are broken. Mhm. Right. The security is wrecked, DNS doesn't work properly, too much domination by a handful of corporations, and advertising is just obnoxious. And I think that the common consensus that kind of internet 1.0 0 was very dull. Internet 2.0 turned out to be corporate and advertised. Internet 3.0 is a bit more like a library. It's a bit more of a community project. Every PD pays a little bit to make it work and the whole thing runs largely adree and is very nice. I think we could get a common understanding that that is an option and I think we could get an internet 3.0 kind of enclave working with millions of users in a very successful microeconomy, right? Plus enough stuff happening in the financial markets and internet things and places like that that real money is going in to continue to build the technology at the same time as real culture begins to step out onto the new land that we've made for them and says actually this is really a lot more comfortable than you do. And I think that's completely achievable for the first 6 months. If that happens then I think we're going to build some new institutions. You know here's the internet 3.0 distributed YouTube, here's the internet 3.0 O distributed Facebook. Here's the input 3.0 distributed uh I don't know um okaycid, right? We start building out services that are designed to work for the people that use them rather than from investors or hard corporate interests. Everybody gets very happy. But I'm not suggesting this is a kind of lockdown socialist anarchist ecosystem like going to a squat and not being allowed to use a phone, right? something which is more permeable that yes of course there'll be business somebody has to pay the engineers but a society in which business exists and produces so much additional good that everybody's comfortable with the results rather than the kind of Google problem where they said don't be evil and then they took it out their corporate charter right let's have something which is predominantly about helping people and making the world a better place and pays its bills through lots of enterprises that are doing the decentralized product development through lots of enterprises that are making some money through people choosing to support the engineer so the thing continues to exist rather than falling back down into the kind of

[1:00:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEGTh9HKUU&t=3613s) concentrated wealth capitalism that has given us the Googles and the Facebooks and everything else because when we get right down to it it's our business model not our technology which is the core competitive asset right you built it on Ethereum I can look at the source code I know that you're on my side using the Ethereum technology stack everybody understands the agency of everything involved in creating that stack. I know you're on my side. This mechanism will not screw me. And that's completely different from the internet as it currently stands where damn near every service that you touch is either monitoring your information or lifting your credit, right? Yeah. An internet that works for us. It doesn't really, right? Yeah. Well, we're building. Good. Thank you very much.

---
End of [301] Ilaria R. and Vinay Gupta discuss the Ethereum Project and theories of political change, part 2 of 2. Its connections are at the top of this file; the map is https://guptaoption.com/llms.txt.
Read next: next on the same works, [775](https://guptaoption.com/texts/775.md) Vinay Gupta - Foreign Policy By Internet Protocol (2015); the most closely related, [706](https://guptaoption.com/texts/706.md) Blockchain Beyond Bitcoin - with Vinay Gupta | Virtual... (2018); his whole career in one file, https://guptaoption.com/story.md.