Mon. Jun 21st, 2021
    Podcast, Free TON

    Free TON community podcast featuring Ben, Mitya Goroshevsky, Eugene Morozov, and Pavel Prigolovko. The philosophical, ethical and technical aspects of the events of the modern decentralized Internet are discussed in the conversation. 

    The podcast is dedicated to green cryptocurrencies, and its participants include a special guest: Anton Zur, CEO and Founder of HumanVenture.

    Free TON podcast № 2. Make crypto green again! Listen on anchor.fm

    Ben: So the topic this week is just a loose topic for us. Kind of go on obviously with Elon Musk and his crazy bitcoin energy consumption U-turn business this week, it’s been pretty much all anyone’s been talking about in the world of cryptocurrency. First question I’ve got to put to whoever would like to jump in first is basically our Bitcoin and other proof of work coins, the carbon emissions nightmare. Who wants to jump in first?

    Mitja: I can give numbers, just to put it in perspective. Bitcoin is emitting something like 37 million tons of carbon dioxide annually which is currently comparable to New Zealand, that’s what Bloomberg says, whether we want to believe it or not. Is it a nightmare? Do you consider current carbon emissions a nightmare? 

    Eugene: There is another angle that you guys may not be looking at this time. And that is  illegal consumption of electricity. I am aware of a huge number of criminal cases open against people that were trying to steal, cut their wires in the grid or have some kind of bribe based arrangement with the local energy or with the army and many other things. So it’s not just the pure consumption that worries me, it’s also a lot of illicit activity that the desire to make money producers, including a lot of illegal stuff. 

    Mitja: I’m not sure illegal stuff is kind of playing a big part of that but also, on another hand, from a completely opposite perspective you need to consider that most of the energy, at least in China, that the Bitcoin is using is an unused energy. It’s produced but never used. That’s why they build these mining farms near these sites of energy production where they can consume the electricity which is produced but not really used. But definitely it is something that consumes electricity, let’s agree on that. And consumes a lot of it.

    Ben: Definitely. I mean, you mentioned the dominance of Chinese miners, Mitja. Does it really claim to the fact that a lot of this energy would otherwise be surplus in the system and kind of going back to the grid or even worth going to waste, is that kind of what you said?

    Mitja: Yes, it’s not being used meaning it’s producing the emissions that are being produced while producing the electricity has already been kind of there, in the atmosphere. So the fact that Bitcoin is actually using this electricity does not necessarily mean that without bitcoin using it it wouldn’t be produced.

    Eugene: But it’s just telling you that there is no efficient way to transfer energy where it’s very important or necessary. 

    Mitja: Yeah, this is not a Bitcoin problem. That’s a problem of what the electricity industry structure right now and the technical abilities that we have currently managing the electricity to produce. 

    Ben: For all the technological advances we’ve made over the past 50 years, the lithium ion battery has pretty much remained the same in all that time which flows my mind a little bit.

    Mitja: It’s physically very hard, that’s it. It’s just very very hard to store electricity. It’s much easier to store energy in other forms. 

    Ben: Anton, have you got any thoughts or feelings  you wanted to put into it? 

    Anton: Yeah, sure. So for me on one hand, it could be the same type of consideration that for example electrical vehicles are green or not. So meaning that yes, they do not emit any CO2 but on the other hand the electricity that they’re using is not green and that’s the point and this is why Elon said now that they will not be using Bitcoin unless the electricity generation becomes green. So therefore yeah, but I’m looking at it from another angle. So this energy transition is really a big thing. For example, there is a stand for the roadmap for 100% energy transitioning for major countries in the world that implies like 125 trillion dollars of investment. And definitely bitcoin does not seem to be a cryptocurrency to fund that and to service that because with market capital for less than 1% of the investment need already consuming electricity just like a decent country like New Zealand or a European country, how could you use it for the energy transition? So yeah, I believe that definitely there should be a need and the demand for greener cryptocurrencies, greener consensus. I see several stages upcoming there.

    Ben: That fits very nicely into the next question I have lined up. Does bitcoin, as a singular cryptocurrency entity, do we think that it justifies its energy uses each compared to the forms of crypto? Does the extra security that this massive hashing power that Bitcoin has, I think it’s a hundred and forty nine terawatt hours or something like, does that really justify the means to the ends compared with other systems?

    Mitja: It’s a complex question. I’ll just give some perspective and let other people talk. First of all, if you compare the security that fiat currencies have, they are currently basically secured by the army kind of weapon spendings. So if you take all the weapons spendings around the world like the US and other countries, you’ll see a massive amount of money and energy that has been spent and I’m not talking about other damage like people’s lives. Let’s forget about that for a second, but this is a massive amount of money, which is basically securing a lot of things among the fiat currency. Bitcoin, if we want decentralized currency and we want this currency to be secured, then if you compare that with what fiat currencies are secured with it’s not a big price to pay, just by comparison. Is it justifiable or not? If you want to decentralize currency, there is no other way presumably, let’s talk about that later. If we think that bitcoin is the ultimate decentralized currency, then is it justifiable for security? Yes, otherwise we would not have it simply speaking. That’s one aspect. And that’s not the only one aspect.

    Eugene: I tend to agree with what you’re saying, especially even the fact that bitcoin today seems to be the most valued asset in the world and if you look at the mechanism of protection, which is mathematics based clearly, it does appear to be significantly less defending than a fiat currency, especially if somebody wants to play with that fiat currency, as we have had in the past, history teaches us that a coordinated effort of external players can significantly affect the value of a particular national currency. 

    Mitja: Yeah, absolutely. Anyone want to expand on that? 

    Anton: Yeah, I’d like to add my couple of cents. I would say that Bitcoin is just an example of an ideal abstract cryptocurrency like a universal equivalent of value, which is constantly going up in value due its limited supply. But I think that in terms of energy efficiency, I would also consider the utility tokens for the upcoming green energy ecosystem, which means that the number of investments demanded efforts is over one hundred billion dollars. It’s just the beginning. You can imagine that at the end of the day, we will have the entire new economic model, where all cars will be elected, all power stations will replace gas stations and I think that apart from the economic efficiency of the cryptocurrency itself, I think also the future is for utility tokens which will by themselves create their own positive energy and environmentally carbon footprint.

    Mitja: Yeah, I absolutely agree with you, but I would take these numbers, because there are a lot of numbers that’s flying around, like trillions. I would take that as well. Effects of global warming and the motivation of people to follow these numbers and make an Excel sheet calculation with exponential projections, they just don’t work in reality. I am not a global warming dissident or something, but in the beginning of COVID, when China shut down, I said: “We will have a very cold winter next winter.” And of course many scientists disagreed, but we saw that this winter was significantly lower in temperature and particularly in developed countries, than it was for the last 10 years. And of course, it wasn’t the coldest winter but it was pretty cold. And if we consider that the warming was an effect of energy outcome, we can see that we can change this quite rapidly if we just shut down. I would take all these numbers, again, with the grain of salt there, they’re not absolute numbers. And they think that if we move a lot of the economy and I totally agree with Anton on that and it will happen if we move that to cryptocurrencies and utility tokens, the Bitcoin will stay but we definitely a lot of utility will be moved to the proof of stake networks like Free TON, then we will see what this can do to the economy, already will have a significant impact including the global warming for much less money. 

    Eugene: That is especially true. Given the changing regulatory environment, at least in many developed countries, there will be more and more pressure applied to businesses to strive to become carbon neutral and therefore mechanisms that can be offered to those people in helping them demonstrate that they use the clean energy they bought from some green energy producers specifically, not from just a regular green, I think that will go a long way towards adoption of such instruments as a ecology token for example.

    Anton: Of course I agree with you and with Mitja in particular that of course probably we should not take it in a very straightforward way with all those excels and numbers. But on the other hand, as Eugene was saying, for example, carmakers, they are going to discontinue internal combustion engines starting from 2025-2030. You will not be able to buy them starting from 2030 already. So yeah, we can in terms of cars and this is only part of this energy transition trend, so we have now 1 billions cars and out of them I believe it’s about 1% are electric vehicles. And by 2030 I guess that they project that 15% of all cars in the world will be electric. I’m just imagining that all of the cars will become electric and this is a massive huge business opportunity. 

    Mitja: If we talk about transportation, it consumes like 15% more or less of all the greenhouse emissions and of course a lot of that transportation is nothing to do with the cars, it’s planes and all that stuff. And of course when we turn everything electric, it doesn’t mean it won’t pollute, it will pollute on the producing side. 

    Ben: Exactly. The electricity has to come from somewhere at the end of the day. Someone mentioned a carbon offset there a couple of sentences back. Do we think that cryptocurrency can be a force for good in these other human impact areas and kind of offset its own damage perhaps by being involved in carbon offset schemes or carbon footprint offsets? Artem, feel free to pick up if you’ve got anything.

    Mitja: I think Anton can definitely talk about the cryptocurrency in offsetting but I would not put it offsetting because again as I said, we don’t really know how much of this production is really damaging. I would say maybe one percent of all the consumptions maybe can be attributed to cryptocurrency. 

    Ben: In the US alone we had six trillion kilograms of CO2 produced last year. Bitcoin was estimated to produce about 20 to 25 million tons of carbon dioxide, so literally a drop in the ocean.

    Mitja: If you just take the consumption but you should not take just the consumption because even in the United States a lot of that is a green energy it’s coming from the Sun in Southern states where they have the mining in Texas and stuff like that. So I would say that it needs to be divided many times over. I think Anton can talk about using cryptocurrency in helping people.

    Anton: Yeah, absolutely. I think that when we look at bitcoin, obviously the carbon footprint is definitely negative. I would think of token models and cryptocurrencies which generate positive impact and where the net impact is positive. For example, I was happy and we were happy to join the Free TON ecosystem in particular for example because you have the functionality of non fungible tokens. You can use the NFT model for renewable energy certificates. And if this digitalizes the thing and just makes the market more transparent and more efficient, then for example if we would think of renewable energy certificates in the form of NFTs, definitely this particular token would have a positive effect on carbon footprint. This is how I put it and there are a lot of applications of tokens, for example, you can trade the electricity on blockchain and of course, this should be efficient. Therefore my question to Mitja: do you have any numbers in terms of energy efficiency of Free TON?

    Mitja: Oh yeah, it’s very easy. Today Free TON, even if you take a thousand validators. Each validator right now is running on the server which costs from 250 to 300/400 euros a month. And there’s just one server, basically one computer device, it consumes I would say 300-400 watts, something like that. If you think of a thousand computers like that, it’s very small even compared to a lot of cloud applications. If you take Amazon or AWS or Google cloud, any corporation consumes way more, even just running their own server farm. So this is very energy efficient and this computer that I’m talking about, they can run between 5000 to 10000 transactions per second, we don’t have applications currently to consume that amount of throughput, right? If you just take all еру decentralized applications that you have across all the blockchains right now, they all together even on the peak hours won’t consume as much transactions. Twitter, for example, on average is consuming about 3,000 tps, Visa is consuming less. So if you take that, it’s very cheap and very very energy efficient.

    Anton: Yeah, that’s really very very cool. In fact, we’re now working in Human Venture on a couple of new products, new tokens models and new products for energy transition like for electric vehicles for energy generation and just the last box that we needed to take was this carbon footprint on Free TON. I was going to ask whether someone at least was thinking about it and that’s great that you have a straightforward answer. Let me come back to you to request more details because this is definitely what we’d like to use in our model and basically this is again what we propose in our partnership. Human Venture would be excited to join this movement inside Free TON to generate a positive impact on the ecosystem. We started with this token for charities and there is already positive social and human impact so likewise we can also build products that will be generating positive environmental impact and positive impact on carbon footprint. I’m really very happy. 

    Eugene: I have a technical question, if I may. In order for the proper trading system in energy to be available, is it correct that every end user must have some kind of device that actually informs the network of the status of a particular consumption? And only if that is possible if the producer of green energy essentially does the same on the supplies side, only then you will technically match the two. Is it so, Mitja?

    Mitja: I’m not an expert on energy management, but I can say that it will also need to involve a lot of batteries. And when you talk about a lot of batteries, you also need to take into account their environmental impact when you produce them. It’s very hard to calculate. But yeah, you’re right, there definitely should be the formation flow between all of these endpoints, but again, that is not the problem because IoT devices are very cost effective right now, they’re really small and there’s no problem to install it in every home. Most of them, by the way, already have electronic devices with reporting capabilities, at least in developed countries. 

    Ben: There was a big push here in the UK to try and get every home to have one just to measure the overall home’s energy output. I think it’s definitely possible but as you said, Mitja, the kind of additional cost with these things so you have to then factor in manufacture, the battery side of things, so obviously the chemical production, the lithium mining these things just wrap in whole.

    Mitja: Also transferring of energy. It would be kind of easy if you would say: “Okay, we have electricity at night in one hemisphere, let’s transfer all this electricity to the other hemisphere”, but of course that is not just possible because electricity cannot be freely transferred across the globe easily as you understand.

    Eugene: I can add to that in the US in particular, there were numerous attempts on the city level to allow for such transferring, including from industry to consumer, education, transportation or whatever and it didn’t really work in full anywhere that I’m aware of. Again, outside the blockchain, there is a lot to be done to allow for that and I’m hoping that part catches up with us quickly enough so this can be implemented.

    Mitja: Anton, what do you think about that? 

    Anton: I’m a fan of the decentralized model so when a person can be not just a consumer of electricity but prosumer. Imagine that everyone has a solar panel either on a private house or if we have an apartment building then just they can be a condo owner on these solar panels on the roof. And then everyone can basically produce electricity and then sell it to the grid. And this is where blockchain works very well. By the way, I believe that the first example of such energy trading on blockchain was called Brooklyn Microgrid. There was a community in Brooklyn and they had solar panels on several buildings and they just basically connected themselves into a local grid, they traded electricity among themselves. 

    Eugene: I have the opposite example. Energy generated by waste management plants using paralysis machines, the grid just wouldn’t buy because it is not economically viable for them to buy. 

    Mitja: And there are many examples of that. If you have a monopoly in one of the countries, Latvia, for example. There are a lot of hurdles, Latvenergo is basically the monopoly of the energy producers in Latvia, just not allowing people to build wind farms. And there are a lot of people who wanted to build it in Latvia because it’s a very good place for it, it’s just a pain in the neck. They won’t buy you, they won’t certify you and so on. 

    Anton: Absolutely, as I understand it and I have friends and partners here in Austria, for example, when they really confirmed that it is very very difficult despite all the policies and legislation in place for microgeneration. In fact, it’s very very difficult to connect yourself to the grid. At the same time this state policy is there, I understand that for utilities basically they of course do not appreciate new large generation capacities simply because first of all, they do not like competition and secondly for as long as they are responsible for balancing the grid, of course they do not need some surplus supply to the grid, they just want to regulate it themselves. But I think that microgeneration, and I see how it is moving for example here in Europe, for example several years ago I attended one conference and there was an amazing guy from Germany and he delivered a presentation on the search of the energy market and he said that they do have a target of 100% renewable energy. And he said that 30% or 40% is taken up as the commitment on the business side, another 30-40% is subsidized by the state but 20 to 30%, there is no way to cover it other than via the centralized model because, for example, transportation of energy is one of the keys. For example, if you take Russia, now they have this microgeneration law and there is a huge potential in Siberia in the far East. And a friend of mine even had a report called 1 million solar roofs. That means that the density of the population is very low and energy transportation, you just cannot afford it. Now they are using coal and diesel but surprisingly the most insulated part of Russia is east of Siberia, this is where we have potential. 

    Mitja: Absolutely. I think this is the way to go but there is a lot of politics, you need to take it on the macroeconomic side. And we can easily, I believe, replace energy as you said with microproducing but that means that we will stop consuming energy from many countries and these many countries will have a lot of problems. 

    Anton: We can even look one level low and not at the level of separate countries but at the level of producers. And there was an interesting startup in the US several years ago, their business model is that they are an adviser firm and they advise fossil fuel companies how to do any transition. And now we see that this is happening. Some companies are investing heavily in windmills, in electric power stations. They now tend even to call themselves not so oil companies, but energy companies. 

    Mitja: Sure, they are not the problem, but when we stop buying energy from countries like Russia and OPEC countries. Again, a lot of politics involved and if OPEC countries, for example, it’s definitely their prime income. In Russia you may say that it’s not their prime income already but OPEC, the population will go to what the state they’ve been into like 100 years ago. I’m not sure we want that and right now we’re subsidizing their living with consumption energy. We need to think about what we substitute that for. But we need to think about their economies.

    Ben: This is one of the big problems, isn’t it? The macroeconomics sign of things that you’ve mentioned, Mitja. Obviously you have countries like the US, the UK, Western Europe, where we’ve built out fossil fuel infrastructure over the past hundred or so years and it’s been a journey away and it’s helped us to develop the Western world. And now you have a place in developing countries: in Africa, India, places like this and there. That fossil fuel infrastructure is much newer. They’re still paying off the relative debts for the power plants they’ve built. So there is a big  international argument against it. 

    Mitja: My point was that actually cryptocurrencies can play a role here. Because it creates new economies and creates new economic opportunities and I think in that particular respect when we start moving energy consumption from their countries and their energy sources, cryptocurrencies can play a role in creating the new economies there, but of course their legislators, particularly in Russia, it’s very very narrow view that they’re taking on the role of cryptocurrency can play in their economy and how that can help their economy grows without this energy, resources market, but of course one of the things that they don’t like about cryptocurrencies is with any economical impact, economic creation it also creating freedom just by freedom free trade and so on. And I’m not sure they like it very much. 

    Alexander: The subject of our podcast is make crypto green again, and I think we’ll agree that the proof of stake networks like Free TON solve these issues in comparison to proof of work and Bitcoin particularly. I was just thinking, if you think about blockchain in crypto at large, it’s actually green technology. Think of blockchain voting, instead of driving your car to vote, you would vote on your phone or whatever. Instead of going to the bank to make a transaction you transact tokens. Instead of going to an insurance company you use peer-to-peer lending platforms etc. Why don’t we talk about populizing a blockchain/crypto with green technology? Because it is from my standpoint .

    Ben: Definitely! I’m not sure if you guys know I spent possibly around the first 10 years in my career as a chef working in restaurants all around the world and the amount of wastage in the food supply system, when you get to a professional catering level is just absurd. It really would blow your mind if you’ve never worked in a professional catering environment. Just in that fact alone I could see 10,000 applications for cryptocurrencies to be a green technology. 

    Eugene: I think this topic we’re discussing which is an ecology token goes a long way towards what you’re saying. I think if we introduce an efficient mechanism where people can trade what they own, their energy, if people can really freely trade that, I think that will be a major contribution to the grid economy from the Blockchain community. 

    Anton: Absolutely, absolutely. 

    Mitja: Yeah, totally. 

    Alexander: Mitja, can it be a big marketing angle by an industry, what do you think? Because I don’t think it was ever touched upon. I don’t think anybody ever stated that blockchains crypto is contributing towards cleaner… (The connection was cut off — ed.)

    Mitja: We lost Alexander but I got the point. Yeah, right now it’s going the opposite way because of bitcoin and Elon Musk and you need to remember also that currently Bitcoin is the kind of reserve currency for all cryptocurrencies. And you cannot discard that part. Right now despite the fact that we have proof of stake cryptocurrency like Free TON, underneath that there is a layer which we all rely upon, which is bitcoin, like a reserve currency that we all fall back to. I spoke to Anatoly Yakovenko from Solana and he said: “Don’t you think that all these coins that we created are just basically to create value to buy bitcoin?” It may be a little absurd but it just shows that we still rely a lot on bitcoin in all the cryptocurrencies and reserve currency layer and this layer is definitely not green as we said before, maybe overstated as we also said. But still, it’s negative. So before we say that cryptocurrencies are green or contributing to green energy, we need to move away from bitcoin as the layer of the reserve cryptocurrency or at least the bitcoin needs to be much smaller in comparison with all other cryptocurrencies to delete the argument, right?

    Ben: This takes us a little bit back to the arguments of centralized access points for newcomers, especially Mitja. Do you know perhaps that the rest of the crypto market is decoupling from Bitcoin a little bit at the moment? I am using myself as an example. When I first got involved a few years back, the only way to get involved with a project like Free TON and such was to go through Bitcoin first, but nowadays there’s a multitude of options where you can convert your fiat straight to any number of all coins. Obviously most of them are pretty centralized but there are some options out there now. 

    Mitja: Definitely, it’s just a matter of time. Bitcoin has one property and this property is a very good one, but it’s only one. You can only transfer bitcoin basically, practically speaking, and it’s a reserve currency like gold. So it serves very well this purpose, because it’s quite secure and the Nakamoto consensus, what we call it, or proof of work, is probably currently the best way to secure cryptocurrency. Proof of stake right now is still in the research phase. We have very few true proof of stake projects out there and they have not been tested for 10,12,13 years. We cannot truly decouple before proof of stake networks like Free TON  proofs that they can be really reliable and they are really secure and of course the consensus algorithms, protocols that we use are probabilistic based and there was a lot of ongoing research right now into them, still ongoing. It’s not as well researched as the proof of work system yet, so I think that this decoupling is happening and again is just a matter of time but it’s not there yet. 

    Ben: You don’t see Bitcoin turning proof of stake anytime soon?

    Mitja: It was tried. The proof of stake was created in 2012 and the guys who created that project, they started the project of proof of stake bitcoin. But it didn’t work. 

    Ben: To me in a more general way, Free TON does work differently which is another reason I love this project so much. The proof of stake for the general basic idea, it does kind of lead down to that idea of more coins — more power, which is kind of against the idea of Bitcoin in itself, what do you think? 

    Mitja: I would disagree on that completely. First of all, I don’t think that the more tokens — more power is a bad idea. It’s not necessarily so. I would also disagree that in bitcoin you don’t have that. Who is taking decisions in Bitcoin is a big subject. I don’t think we can even touch upon right now. 

    Ben: I mean, if you’re taking everyone’s favorite Dogecoin as an example at the moment, if you were to turn the Dogecoin into a proof of stake consensus, you’ve got one wallet owner who owns 23% of the supply who would automatically have a lot more than everyone else pretty much. 

    Mitja: Again, what it basically proves is that if you just turn Dogecoin into proof of stake token, it will be just a very bad proof of stake token. So it proves exactly that, nothing else. 

    There’s no one who controls a lot of bitcoins. So if you turn Bitcoin to proof or stake, nothing bad would really happen. But of course it’s not coming anytime soon.

    Ben: I’m pretty sure the big controlling mining powers might have a few words to say about that. 

    Mitja: Exactly. And that’s also by the way embedded into the problems of Bitcoin. Bitcoin as a protocol has embedded its own device into the protocol itself. It was created on the basis of this idea and not the other of course because there was no other idea at the time of this Satoshi creation. It’s an absolutely genius creation and it’s serving us very well. But definitely  there will be other cryptocurrency and it won’t be Bitcoin, which will replace it as a dominant cryptocurrencies. I’m sure there won’t be one dominant cryptocurrency going forward and by the way definitely won’t be Ethereum. 

    Ben: That’s a personal attack, yeah. Rounding back to what Alexander said and bringing Anton back into the conversation. Cryptocurrency is a force for good in the world then. What do you think of the main kinds of areas where cryptocurrency can obviously prove its worth in terms of, well, even if it does have this small environmental footprint, look at all the good it does. 

    Mitja: Can I make it a little bit more dramatic?

    Ben: Of course, always!

    Mitja: What do you think about Vitalik Buterin’s gesture of donating all of his wealth to the Indian COVID efforts fighting?

    Anton: Of course that was a very generous gesture but it led to the collapse of the price of those tokens and the fact that it is much lower than it could be, it could be done in a more consistent and started way. I am sure that cryptocurrencies can be used for generation of positive social and environmental impact. I am not saying that this is an industry marketing promotion because of the dominance of Bitcoin it can be arguable in terms of carbon footprint to say the least. For me, of course, such properties of blockchain as security and economic efficiency and transparency, in fact, I was really fascinated by the concept of DAO. When people just come together and use blockchain as a means of transferring value, it can not only be a monetary value, it can be any kind of value equivalent. In Human Venture, we already have this solution for donations. For example, plastic collection. The good thing is due to its transparency and very logical token model as the unit of value, your input becomes very measurable on blockchain. In our case every recipient has his or her own wallet. It’s very transparent and it’s very logical. I would say that the entire scope of all global challenges that humanity is facing can be covered by tokens. 

    Mitja: I think what you’re doing Anton is much better than what Vitalik did. No seriously, 100% because what he did it’s just a way to exit. He doesn’t believe anymore in Ethereum. He basically exited his own cryptocurrency. 

    Anton: His gesture to me sounded like he had a certain amount of tokens and he just decided to give them away and just let it be you take it and then you do whatever you want. Our goal is quite opposite. We do not have billions in cryptocurrencies now but our ultimate goal is to cover the entire scale of the challenge. It’s a kind of karma that in fact we first started thinking of blockchain products for renewable energy, but poverty is the most acute challenge that people are experiencing so therefore somehow it’s happened that with our partners we started with these donation tokens. But of course there are multiple applications because you not only feed people to get them out of poverty. You need to give them education, work, probably some like entrepreneurship would be helpful, so that’s the ultimate model.

    Mitja: Vitalik for me is the quintessential in all these ideas that we had about giving away money, paying income and quite smart people are actually running around with these ideas while for me it is very very clear, like coming from USSR and going through the very low income and poverty states in my life. I think it’s very clear that just giving people food or giving people money won’t do any good but harm. You just don’t do that. As you said, you need to build infrastructure around these people, you need to get them a chance to actually improve their lives.

    5
    0