Tag: blockchain

Categories
web3

Web3 — A Human Revolution If We Do It Right


Web3 — A Human Revolution If We Do It Right

A wallet is not a person, it’s a life. A unique individual navigating challenges, triumphs, and dreams. But, in a web3 space often dominated by anonymity and numbers, we risk dehumanizing ourselves.  

When you see a wallet address—a string of alphanumeric characters—it’s easy to focus on what it represents: assets, transactions, or activity on the blockchain. But that address belongs to someone.  

Take, for example, a young woman in Afghanistan who recently learned to code through a Web3 initiative that I wrote about last week. Her wallet isn’t just a tool for storing cryptocurrency—it’s a lifeline. It’s where she receives her earnings for freelance projects, where she saves for her family’s future, and where she holds the key to a sense of independence she never thought possible. To her, that wallet represents freedom in a world where opportunities for women are scarce.  

Without knowing her story, her wallet address could be dismissed as just another string of characters in the blockchain. But her reality is far more profound. Perhaps she’s called mommy and she pays for her mother’s medications, her siblings’ education, and food for her family. 

One of the greatest promises of Web3 is its ability to empower people through anonymity and decentralization. In reality these are not empty buzz-words. 

Web3 wallets allow individuals to participate in the global economy without disclosing their identity or relying on traditional institutions. This is especially critical for people who live in places where financial systems are inaccessible or discriminatory.  

But anonymity can also create distance between us. When we see people as wallet addresses instead of human beings, we risk detaching from the social and ethical responsibilities that come with this new technology. 

I feel, it’s easier to dismiss a wallet as “just another address” than to acknowledge the person behind it and the challenges or triumphs they represent. Am I right?

But, this detachment can have consequences. When we lose sight of the human story behind blockchain transactions, we risk building systems that prioritize efficiency over equity, or innovation over inclusion.   

If Web3 is to fulfill its promise of decentralization, empowerment,  and freedom, we must actively remember the human stories behind the technology. This perspective is vital for our well-being because it ensures that the systems we build serve people—not the other way around.  

I don’t have to turn to research to claim that when people feel seen and respected, they are more likely to thrive—mentally, emotionally, and physically. 

In the context of Web3, respecting the human stories behind wallets can mean the difference between fostering trust and creating alienation.  

If platforms fail to recognize the person behind a wallet address, they might implement policies or systems that unintentionally exclude them or make it harder for them to participate. But when platforms adopt a human-centric perspective, they make sure that people are supported, included, and given the tools they need to succeed.   

”This is respect for us as human beings and how we create stronger communities”

I dare to say. To me it’s simple, by keeping people at the center, we ensure that Web3 delivers on its promise to empower individuals and solve real-world problems.  

Web3 can be a human revolution if we listen to ourselves and do it right.

Categories
web3

How Web3 Is Actually Empowering Women and Changing Lives

How Web3 Is Actually Empowering Women and Changing Lives

In many parts of the world, women face unimaginable hardships. From systemic inequality to cultural restrictions, their opportunities are often dictated by forces beyond their control. After having spent over 20 years in public health I have learnt that when women thrive, their families thrive, and society as a whole benefits. Therefore it’s particularly interesting to hear about how Web3 technology can help women in the face of adversity.

Blockchain technology, is emerging as a powerful tool to amplify women’s resilience. By providing women with access to education, financial independence, and global opportunities, Web3 is not only transforming individual lives but also creating a profound public health impact. Nowhere is this more evident than in Afghanistan, where women are using Web3 to rewrite their futures.

Across the globe, women face systemic barriers that limit their access to education, employment, and financial independence. In many countries, cultural norms and restrictive policies further exacerbate these challenges. Let me paint a clear picture:

  • According to UNESCO, 129 million girls worldwide are out of school, with many denied access due to poverty, conflict, or gender discrimination.
  • The World Bank reports that nearly 1 billion women globally remain unbanked, unable to access basic financial services.

Let’s remember, that women’s lack of autonomy often leads to poorer health outcomes for themselves and their families, perpetuating cycles of poverty and inequality.

Afghanistan is a stark example of these challenges. Since the Taliban regained control in 2021, women’s rights have been severely restricted. Girls are banned from secondary education, women are excluded from most jobs, and their ability to participate in public life has been drastically curtailed. For Afghan women, the dream of independence and opportunity seems almost impossible. But here’s where I found this promising project.

Code to Inspire, the first coding school for girls in Afghanistan, are teaching women how to code and earn cryptocurrency. Founded by Fereshteh Forough, Code to Inspire equips women with technical skills and access to decentralized financial systems, enabling them to bypass traditional barriers.

"Before learning to code, some of the women felt invisible. had no way to support themselves or their family. But now, they’re earning cryptocurrency for work, and it’s given them a sense of freedom."

I think ”code to inspire” challenges not only traditional gender roles but also brings real world value to the individual and society. Truly necessary.

Through Web3, these women are not only gaining financial independence but also reclaiming their agency. Cryptocurrency allows them to securely earn, save, and spend money without relying on local banking systems, which are often inaccessible or controlled by restrictive policies. This financial autonomy is a game-changer, especially in a country where women’s economic participation is heavily restricted.

When I worked for the World Health Organization I saw the impact of focusing on women for to improve society. In fact, research consistently shows that when women gain financial independence, the benefits ripple out to their families and communities. Women are more likely than men to reinvest their earnings in education, healthcare, and nutrition, creating a multiplier effect that improves the well-being of entire households. Women are caring and smart.

In Afghanistan, where maternal and child health outcomes are among the worst in the world, this ripple effect is particularly significant. By empowering women to earn and control their own income, Web3 is indirectly improving public health. To be clear,

  • women with financial independence can afford healthier food for their families, reducing malnutrition rates.
  • With their own income, women can pay for medical care, vaccinations, and medicines for their children.
  • Financially empowered women are more likely to invest in their children’s education, breaking the cycle of poverty and inequality.

This connection between women’s empowerment and public health underscores the broader societal impact of Web3.

The story of Afghan women using Web3 is a powerful example of resilience and innovation in the face of extreme adversity. But it’s not just about Afghanistan. Around the world, women are using Web3 to overcome systemic barriers and create new opportunities for themselves and their families. From creators in the United Kingdom using NFTs to earn a living, to rural entrepreneurs in India accessing microloans through DeFi platforms, the potential of Web3 to drive positive change is exciting.

Here I could use buzz-words like the revolution of blockchain technology and it’s premise of freedom and empowerment. But this time it’s about actual utility for people in reality.

I think the story of Afghan women using Web3 challenges us to think about how we can use technology to empower others, create opportunities, and build a more equitable world. When we invest in women, we invest in families, communities, and the future of society. A human-centric web.

Categories
Business & Society

The Idealism of Web3: A Hindrance or a Guiding Light?

The Idealism of Web3: A Hindrance or a Guiding Light?

Web3, with its promises of decentralization, user ownership, and fairness, feels like a vision of a perfect world. A world where power isn’t concentrated in the hands of a few corporations and where diverse voices shape the future of technology. Wonderful! But let’s be honest—this vision can feel overly idealistic, almost impossible to achieve.

The very idea of decentralization, while compelling, raises serious practical challenges. How do you build systems that truly function without central authorities? Honestly, I believe that most founders, regardless of industry, do want to hold control of their project/company. Sometimes we need a reality check. After all, how do you ensure that “everyone” has a say when so many still lack basic internet access or the technical literacy to participate? Web3 technologies are still complex, and the user interface can be frankly terrible. And even within diverse communities, whose voice gets heard the loudest?

These questions are not easy to answer. But I believe they’re worth having a conversation about, because while idealism may feel like a hindrance, it can also be a guiding light. The key lies in balancing lofty aspirations with grounded, practical approaches. In a way, it’s about a dream.

Decentralization
Decentralization sounds great in theory, but implementing it often leads to messy realities. Let’s not kid ourselves—fully decentralized systems can be inefficient, slow, and prone to conflict. Decision-making in a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), for instance, can lead to disagreements or be dominated by those who hold the most tokens, undermining the very principles of fairness and inclusivity.

Similarly, the idea of platforms “working for everyone” is a beautiful goal, but is it truly realistic? Socioeconomic divides, language barriers, and cultural differences make it nearly impossible to design a single system that serves everyone equally. These idealistic values can feel paralyzing, setting goals so high that progress seems unattainable.

Rather than dismissing these ideals as unworkable, what if we treated them as guiding principles rather than rigid blueprints?

“Idealism doesn’t have to mean perfection; it can mean striving to make things better, step by step.”

Pragmatic approaches to idealistic goals
For instance, decentralization doesn’t have to be absolute. Hybrid models—where some aspects are decentralized, while others remain centralized for efficiency—can offer a pragmatic compromise. Why not use a decentralized ledger and a centralized operation management with a heart in the right place?

Similarly, “working for everyone” doesn’t mean solving every inequity overnight. It could mean prioritizing accessibility and building tools that are simple and intuitive. It could also mean focusing on specific underserved communities rather than trying to please the entire world at once. Instead of saying, “We’ll build a platform that works for everyone,” we might say, “We’ll onboard 1,000 underserved users this year and provide them with the tools they need to succeed.”

Striking a balance in the fourth industrial revolution
Handling idealistic values in the Fourth Industrial Revolution requires a delicate balance. On one hand, we need the inspiration of bold ideals to keep us pushing forward. On the other, we must be realistic about what’s achievable in the short term.

I think for Web3 to succeed, we should approach it with humility and flexibility. Let’s be open to feedback, adaptations on designs, and recognizing that progress often comes in baby steps. It also means accepting that no system will ever be perfect, and sharing what didn’t work is just as important as celebrating successes.

When I get idealistic about something I care deeply for, I like to take a step back and see it as a challenge. A challenge to dream big while reminding myself to stay pragmatic. The Fourth Industrial Revolution isn’t going to be shaped by idealism alone, but that doesn’t mean idealism doesn’t have its place.

The heart of Web3
When it comes to Web3, that idealism—creating a project that’s good for society or aiming to improve the world—is messy. It’s full of obstacles, compromises, and tough decisions. But it’s also necessary. Without that vision to guide us, we risk losing the heart of why we’re building in the first place. It’s about holding on to those big dreams while doing the hard work to make them real.

Categories
Business & Society

Oracles: A Solution to Web3’s Determinism, or Just Another Trap?

Oracles: A Solution to Web3’s Determinism, or Just Another Trap?

Is Web3 genuinely breaking new ground, or are we just recreating old systems with shinier tools? Smart contracts and oracles promise a decentralized internet that serves the people, but are they leading us toward a more equitable digital landscape—or just spinning another hype narrative? Let’s take a look.

Smart contracts, hyped as the autonomous engines of Web3, are designed to execute automatically based on pre-programmed conditions. Their deterministic nature means that they operate on strict logic: if X happens, then do Y. In theory, this efficiency can streamline processes like aid distribution, bypassing traditional red tape. But I would say they are more simple than smart.

Here’s the problem: real-world issues rarely fit neatly into “if-this-then-that” conditions. Human needs evolve, and social challenges shift unexpectedly, and rigid code rarely adapts without an external input. For example, imagine an international relief aid organization that runs smart contracts that sends aid without considering what happens in the world.

This is where I see the value of oracles. Oracles provide a feed of live, real-world data, feeding smart contracts with the context they lack. While smart contracts operate within their coded boundaries, oracles allow them to respond to changes like weather shifts, public health metrics, or even the latest local news. For example, during a natural disaster, an oracle could detect rising water levels or weather reports, relaying this data to a smart contract tasked with deploying emergency funds. The contract could then release resources in response to these conditions, making relief far more timely and responsive.

Oracles undeniably offer a solution to the limitations of (dumb) smart contracts. They create a bridge between the digital and physical worlds, allowing Web3 to feel more grounded and less robotic. In a sense, they allow technology to “listen” to our world. But we need to stay aware of the problems with oracles.

We can’t ignore the “oracle problem”—the challenge of ensuring that the data oracles provide is trustworthy. I hear concerns about manipulation: if an oracle feeds incorrect or biased data into a smart contract, the entire system could be compromised, causing harm in sensitive areas like healthcare, emergency aid, or social services.

And then there’s the question of control. If a smart contract is only as good as the data it’s fed, who controls the oracle, and who determines which sources are “truthful”? The influence of these data providers could create a new form of centralization within a system that claims to be decentralized. If we’re not careful, oracles might simply shift the problem of centralized control from one place to another, undermining Web3’s vision of true autonomy.

As much as oracles can enhance Web3’s adaptability, they don’t eliminate the need for a human-centered approach. Just as Ethereum, Solana, and other Web3 platforms flirt with decentralization yet remain controlled by a few key players, oracles could easily become another layer of the same centralization, albeit wrapped in new technical jargon. As I see it, Web3’s promise of decentralization will ring hollow if we don’t ground these technologies in human values—equity, accountability, and the public good.

It’s too easy to get swept up in the hype that every new project will “change the world.” The reality is that technology alone won’t drive societal transformation; it’s the underlying principles and governance structures that will either foster inclusivity and fairness or perpetuate the same monopolies of Web2. In fact, if we allow technology to change society, without human interaction, we will likely see the end of humanity.

We need to ask hard questions of every Web3 initiative: Who benefits? Is it primarily the investors and developers, while users remain mere participants? If so, it’s likely that these projects are more about chasing profits than transforming society. It’s worth repeating.

“While technology builds the infrastructure, human values are the blueprints for the future.”

Even as we innovate, we have to remember that a better world requires that these technologies—yes, even smart contracts—adapt over time to evolving human values. Without this adaptability, they’re just programs, not solutions.

Oracles might hold the key to breaking free from Web3's deterministic confines, yet their true potential is based on more than just technological prowess. It’s how we choose to govern and ground these innovations in genuine human values that will determine their impact. Will we stand for transparency, equity, and accountability? Or will we let profit motives lead us back to centralized control under a new costume? For Web3 to build a better world, we need more than code; we need a community ready to uphold the values that technology alone can’t encode.

Categories
Business & Society

What Kind of Digital World Are We Building?

For years, I’ve watched technology reshape our lives, but there’s something different about Web3. I’m sure you’ve heard its promises to revolutionize the internet as we know it. Yes, it could fundamentally change how power, control, and trust are distributed online. But as I dug deeper into this world, I couldn’t shake off a critical question: Is Web3 really going to empower us, or are we just swapping one set of gatekeepers for another?

This question drove me to write What World Are We Creating? The Impact of Web3 on Society and Well-Being. I’ve spent the past two years researching, interviewing, and writing—trying to understand the true implications of Web3 on our society. My journey began with the Cryptobeyer Newsletter, where I share my insights week after week, and I found myself both fascinated and concerned by what I uncovered.

Web3, in essence, is about decentralization, breaking down the power structures that have allowed a few tech giants to dominate the internet. Imagine a digital world where users control their own data, where transactions happen directly between people, and where organizations are run by communities instead of Zuckerberg... It’s an appealing vision of a fairer, more democratic digital space.

But here’s where my skepticism kicks in: Who’s really in control in this brave new world? As I explored the complexities of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and blockchain networks, I realized that the same issues of power and inequality can creep back in. Those who control the “code”—the developers and early adopters—can become the new digital gatekeepers. If we’re not careful, Web3 might replicate the very power structures it’s supposed to dismantle, just dressed in a different set of algorithms.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s immense potential in Web3. In the book, I dive into real-world examples where blockchain is already being used to address big challenges, from improving financial inclusion to creating transparent supply chains in healthcare. These innovations can make a substantial difference, but they also need to be accessible to everyone, not just the tech-savvy few.

What concerns me most is that we might get so caught up in the hype of decentralization that we forget to ask the tough questions: Who’s benefiting? Who’s being left behind? And are we building technology that genuinely serves society, or are we letting technology drive society in a direction we didn’t intend?

I believe in Web3’s potential, but I’m not blind to its pitfalls. That’s why I wrote What World Are We Creating?, to look beyond the hype and grapple with the real issues at stake. I want readers—whether they’re tech enthusiasts, policymakers, or just curious about where the internet is headed—to understand that the future of Web3 isn’t set in stone. The choices we make today will shape the digital society we leave for future generations.

So, will Web3 bring about a more equitable internet? Or will it just give rise to new digital elites? A technocracy. I’m not here to give definitive answers. But I hope this book will prompt us all to think critically, to question, and to demand more from the technologies that are shaping our world.

Check out the book at Amazon.

Categories
Business & Society freedom

Code vs. Humanity: Who Should Really Govern the Blockchain Future?

At the last weekly Networking on the Blockchain live audio event on LinkedIn, we had a heated debate about where we are headed in the fourth industrial revolution. Are we building a future that will empower individuals, or are we slowly walking into a technocracy? I don’t want to be a hype killer, but I see worrying signs that need to be discussed. The libertarian idealism that birthed Bitcoin and decentralized finance promised a new era of personal freedom, free from centralized control. But in a world where “code is law,” are we unknowingly surrendering democracy to algorithms?

It’s a strange paradox, cryptocurrency and blockchain technology were envisioned as the ultimate tools of liberation. No banks, no governments, just math and code. The libertarian dream. Yet, as I’ve watched the space evolve, I’ve become increasingly concerned that this vision of autonomy is, ironically, at risk of slipping into the hands of a technocratic elite, those who control the code.

Let’s be clear: I think the philosophy of decentralization remains one of the most promising ideas of our time. At its core, it rejects the idea that a small group of people, whether they be politicians or trillionaires, should have disproportionate power over the rest of us. Instead, it gives that power to a network of participants, each playing a role in verifying and securing transactions. In theory, it’s a radically democratic idea, rooted in the values of self-sovereignty and personal responsibility. I am sure you know the gist.

But I see a catch: the code that runs these decentralized systems is written and understood by a small number of people. Most of us don’t understand the intricacies of smart contracts or the vulnerabilities that may lie within them. We trust that these contracts will execute fairly because, as the mantra goes, “code is law.” Yet, when a bug in that code leads to catastrophic consequences, as happened with the infamous DAO hack in 2016, it becomes clear that the system is not as foolproof as we’d like to believe.

The 2016 DAO hack exposed a critical vulnerability in smart contract code, allowing an attacker to drain funds and leading to a significant crisis in the Ethereum community. This event shook trust in decentralized systems and highlighted the challenges of decentralized governance, forcing the blockchain industry to rethink security practices and governance mechanisms.

If the law is code, and only a few can write and interpret that code, have we simply replaced one elite with another? 

A technocracy is defined as governance by technical experts, people who supposedly act objectively and rationally for the greater good. And while that sounds appealing, there’s a danger in elevating expertise above the democratic process. After all, expertise doesn’t guarantee moral judgment, nor does it protect against biases.

What’s more, expertise can easily become a shield for power, an excuse for excluding the majority from decision-making. When the people writing the rules are those who understand the code, we create a new class of gatekeepers, ones who may not be elected or accountable to the public. 

Yes, AI can help us understand code and even assist in the democratic process, but since AI technology today is owned by a few tech giants and a handful of specialized companies, my fear is the same for this technology. 

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are indeed a powerful attempt to solve this issue by giving communities the power to govern themselves through code and collective voting. DAOs were supposed to decentralize decision-making, allowing users to vote on everything from project direction to funding allocations. However, as promising as they are, DAOs have not been the panacea for democracy in blockchain. In fact, many face serious challenges that undermine their potential.

I hear that the biggest problem is voter apathy. In theory, DAOs empower every token holder with a vote, but in practice, many people don’t vote at all. They’re either too disinterested, too busy, or simply unaware of the proposals that affect the organization. As a result, a small, active minority often holds disproportionate power. In some DAOs, less than 1% of token holders control over 90% of the voting power, skewing decisions in favor of the few (Chainanalysis, 2022). 

Even when people do participate, there’s the issue of “power concentration.” Those with more tokens have more votes, which often means that wealthy participants or early adopters hold a much larger say in decision-making. This is a far cry from the democratic ideal that blockchain promises. Instead of decentralizing power, we risk recreating the same imbalances seen in the traditional financial system. 

Again, I raise these issues, not because I do not believe in web3 technologies, but because we need to be aware of their pitfalls. After all, it’s tech for people, not for tech itself. 

Then, there’s the problem of “governance complexity.” Reaching consensus in a decentralized system can be slow and difficult. Without a central authority to steer the conversation, DAOs can fall into “decision-making paralysis,” where conflicting views prevent any meaningful progress. In a fast-paced world, this kind of inefficiency can be a serious drawback. This is partly why the traditional legacy system holds on to a centralized system. 

We need to be realistic, and not tech-driven. 

And what about “accountability”? In traditional organizations, there are clear leaders who can be held responsible for failures. But DAOs, with their leaderless structures, often lack a chain of command, making it hard to assign responsibility when things go wrong. Now add the “technical vulnerabilities” of smart contracts, like bugs or loopholes that can be exploited, and it’s clear that DAOs are far from immune to the problems of centralized systems. 

Unfortunately, DAOs are not yet the answer to the democratic crisis in blockchain.

The key lies in embracing a “hybrid approach,” one that blends the efficiency and transparency of code with the flexibility and oversight of human governance.

In our audio event discussion, one participant raised the issue that we need a framework as to how blockchains are governed. How do we ensure necessary changes are made as society changes?  Remember, technology follows society not the other way around.

I stress that code can automate processes, but it shouldn’t replace human judgment altogether. DAOs need mechanisms for human intervention, especially in cases of ethical dilemmas or technical errors. 

Some DAOs are already experimenting with solutions. Quadratic voting is one method that helps distribute voting power more evenly, preventing large token holders from dominating decisions. I also identify what’s called “tiered decision-making” where smaller groups handle day-to-day operations, leaving the larger community to vote on significant issues. These innovations are promising, but they require thoughtful implementation to ensure fairness and inclusivity. 

Ultimately, if we want blockchain and DAOs to be truly democratic, we must build systems that ensure fair representation, foster accountability, and provide failsafes for human oversight.

Let’s not be scared of some human interaction in the decision-making process. This hybrid model would allow us to retain the best parts of decentralization while avoiding the pitfalls of unchecked automation. 

We need to be vigilant as the fourth industrial revolution offers incredible potential. Democracy isn’t about blindly trusting code or algorithms; it’s about participation, accountability, and moral decision-making. Therefore, code cannot be law. As we continue to build this digital world, we must ensure that we the people, not just the coders or AI-driven code, remain in control. 

Categories
Business & Society

Ripple’s Hybrid Strategy: A Practical Approach to Merging Centralization and Decentralization!?

The clash between centralized and decentralized systems isn’t just a boring theoretical debate; it’s a real-world challenge with meaningful consequences. I decided to look into how we can move forward and found the idea of blending traditional centralized structures with new decentralized technologies, known as the hybrid model. I would say it seems like a logical approach. Here’s why!


We all know how bureaucratic organizations operate, with decisions trickling down from the top. These centralized systems—whether in governments or corporations—are designed for stability and control but often struggle with rigidity and a lack of innovation. They provide consistency but can also be slow to adapt. Frankly, annoying to be in contact with.
 
On the other hand, decentralization offers promises of more distributed decision-making, transparency, and autonomy. But the real challenge is figuring out how to incorporate these decentralized benefits into existing centralized systems. It’s not easy to completely transform a centralized system into a fully decentralized one, so a hybrid approach, combining elements of both, seems like a practical middle ground.
 
I would say that Ripple’s strategy is a hybrid model.
 
Parts of the crypto community are very critical, saying that Ripple and its token XRP are frankly a representation of what cryptocurrencies should not be due to their lack of decentralization. I call for more nuanced thinking. While XRP, Ripple’s cryptocurrency, includes decentralized features like a validator network and consensus mechanism, it doesn’t go as far as some other cryptocurrencies in terms of decentralization. Ripple is blending decentralized aspects with a centralized approach to achieve its business goals.
 
A key part of Ripple’s strategy is its upcoming stablecoin, Ripple USD (RLUSD). I heard it’s set to launch in late September or early October. RLUSD will be pegged 1:1 to the US dollar and backed by a combination of dollar deposits and short-term US government treasuries. Initially, it will be available to institutional investors and aims to enhance Ripple’s cross-border payment services, fitting into the existing financial system rather than disrupting it entirely.
 
Ripple is clearly using the hybrid advantage.
 
Ripple’s method highlights why a hybrid approach might be necessary. By focusing on specific pilot projects and use cases, Ripple is testing decentralized technology in controlled environments. They work mostly in secrecy and with multiple countries across the world to explore how blockchain can be applied in practical ways, allowing them to refine their technology and manage risks. I bet Non-Disclosure Agreements are a key part of their business…
 
Ripple takes baby steps together with centralized institutions. This incremental approach means Ripple can introduce new technologies gradually, making adjustments based on real-world feedback. It’s a way to benefit from decentralization without completely stressing out existing systems. Yes, it’s also good for business.
 
Ripple’s ongoing regulatory challenges in the U.S. underscore the difficulties of integrating decentralized elements into traditional financial systems. It also shows that banks hold tightly to power. These issues show why a hybrid approach, one that respects existing regulations while incorporating new technologies, is smart. I am guessing that Ripple’s commitment to transparency, through planned reserve attestations for RLUSD, is part of their effort to address these concerns.
 
Ripple’s strategy offers a valuable lesson. The hybrid model may be a key to gaining broader adoption. Many people are more interested in practical benefits and real-world applications than in the ideological purity of decentralization. Just look at the price of Cardano after its complete decentralization… Nothing burger…
 
It’s clear that achieving widespread adoption is more about solving real problems within a commonly centralized system than strictly adhering to decentralized principles.

Categories
Refi

Regenerative Finance: A Band-Aid on a Broken System

I am currently part of the ReFi Talent program at Frankfurt School Blockchain Center, deeply immersed in the buzz surrounding regenerative finance. The idea is compelling: use innovative financial tools to restore and sustain our planet while creating wealth. It sounds like the holy grail—a win-win for capitalism and the environment. But here’s the thing: I’m skeptical. And you should be too.

Regenerative finance, or ReFi, promises yet another revolution. It uses blockchain technology, tokenization, and decentralized governance to address climate change and social inequity. Hear me yawn. Let’s not kid ourselves.

At its core, ReFi is still rooted in the same capital-driven logic that got us into this mess in the first place. It’s like trying to clean up an oil spill with paper towels, well-intentioned but woefully inadequate.

 Take Al Gore, for example. His work with Generation Investment Management is often said to be a model for sustainable finance. Gore has pushed for the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria into investment decisions, aiming to align profit with purpose. Thanks Al, but the ESG movement has been riddled with problems.

Companies slap on an ESG label, but underneath, it’s business as usual. Oil giants tout their green investments while continuing to pump out fossil fuels. Banks invest in green bonds, yet finance deforestation and human rights abuses on the side. ReFi risks falling into the same trap of becoming a new, shinier mask for the same old capitalism. I see a problem here.

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room.

ReFi might promise democratized finance, but it’s plagued by capital bias. The beautiful message of Refi is that it promise to democratize finance, but the reality is that only those with substantial wealth and access to technology can fully participate and reap significant benefits. Sure a few farmers in Africa may earn, pennies worth, of tokens from using web3 enhanced cooking appliance and therefore decrease CO2 emissions in the process. But on a broader scale, capital bias reinforces existing inequalities, leaving marginalized communities excluded from the purported advantages of regenerative finance.

Those with substantial wealth and access to technology are better positioned to participate in and benefit from ReFi initiatives.

Refi has more problems. With weak regulation, the risk of greenwashing, cryptocurrency volatility, and governance dominated by tech elites, ReFi often prioritizes financial returns over real social and environmental outcomes. It’s a new game where the same players keep winning.  

And what about the climate crisis?

ReFi might fund a few tree-planting projects or carbon-offset schemes, but it doesn’t address the root cause: an economic system that values profit over the planet. Take drinking water, for instance. It is often treated as a tradable resource rather than a fundamental human right. We don’t need more financial instruments; we need a fundamental shift in how we relate to the resources of the earth and each other.

The focus on individual projects misses the bigger picture, climate change is a systemic issue that requires systemic solutions.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: ReFi, for all its promise, is still a Band-Aid on a broken system. It may patch up a few cracks, but it doesn’t address the underlying rot. To truly tackle climate change, we need to move beyond the hype of financial innovation and web3 technology.

We need to confront the real problem of a global economy that prioritizes wealth accumulation over planetary survival.

Thank you, Marjorie Kelly, for pointing out what is wrong here. The future we need is not one where finance plays the hero. It’s one where we redefine success, moving away from growth at all costs to a model that values sustainability, equity, and well-being. This means dismantling the structures of wealth supremacy that Marjorie Kelly critiques in her book, Wealth Supremacy. It means creating an economy that serves people and the planet, not just profits. We need systemic change, not superficial fixes.

So yes, I’m still part of the ReFi Talent program, for now, since I see some potential. But I also see the danger of buying into another false solution. If we want to make a real difference, we need to stop tinkering around the edges and start reimagining the system from the ground up. Anything less is just paper towels on an oil spill.

Categories
Business & Society

From Bartender to Web3 Pioneer: Alexandra’s Story Behind Thrilld Labs

When I logged into Zoom to interview Alexandra, the founder of Thrilld Labs, I could tell this was going to be special. She greeted me with a radiant smile, a mix of warmth and energy that immediately set the tone for our conversation. Yes, she was beautiful, but what captivated me was her story—her grit, resilience, and determination to bring value to the Web3 space.

Alexandra’s journey started with a simple yet powerful idea: making it easier for people in Web3 to connect. Thrilld Labs emerged from this vision, a platform that brings together projects, investors, developers, and service providers. Through her innovation, the Synergy-Machine, Alexandra created a space where real people meet, collaboration happens, and ideas flourish. Yes, partnerships take shape. I would say it’s Tinder for Web3.

Her journey wasn’t easy. Originally from the Netherlands, Alexandra moved to Italy over 10 years ago. I could even sense the warmth in her studio, all the way to my place in Sweden. Alexandra entered the Web3 world in 2017, not as a developer, but as a trader looking to pay off her student debt. I forgot to ask if she was successful in trading. With two Master’s degrees (one about Policy and the other in Political Science) under her belt she said that she wanted to change the world. 

Alexandra worked in hospitality, bartending to support herself through school. That experience taught her the value of hard work, adaptability, and persistence. I would say that these qualities are essential in launching Thrilld Labs. I could relate when she told me that it was not easy to raise capital when experiencing imposter syndrome as a non-developer and female founder in a male-dominated space. Imposter syndrome limits our personal growth if we succumb to it.

Her journey also involved profound personal loss. Alexandra lost both her father and stepfather to cancer and watched her mother battle the same disease. These tragedies pushed her to focus on what truly mattered.

“Losing my loved ones made me realize how short life is,” she told me. “It made me determined to create something meaningful.”

What I see in Alexandra’s story is a person who finds meaning in serving. In her case, she has even managed to make it a purpose in life. She really seems to be living a life worth living. Busy, but on her true path.

My T-shirt was not thin enough for that hot day. She smiled and fixed her blond hair. I laughed when I shared that I am single.

Now, Thrilld Labs is gearing up for its next phase. Alexandra plans to launch a utility token later this year, opening up investment opportunities to both large and small contributors. She was clearly happy about that milestone in her business.

But if there’s one thing I learned from our conversation, it’s that we need grit and many years, with or without a salary, before we are at our goal. Alexandra really seems to have the necessary grit to see it through. I invite you to check out the Thrilld App and get connected with fellow Web3 professionals.

Categories
Business & Society

Singapore’s Leap into the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Model for Countries

The technologies of the 4th Industrial Revolution have the power to offer brand new opportunities for innovation, effectiveness, and prosperity. This transformation of society calls for forward thinking and courage. Singapore is a leading example of a nation successfully navigating its way into the digital era. Here’s what Singapore is doing and what I see we can learn from it.

Singapore's technological journey traces back to the 1960s when it embarked on a path of industrialization, with the electronics manufacturing sector leading the way. Early on, the government understood the importance of having a digitally savvy population and has launched three highly successful programs since the 1980s to make it an intelligent island. This led to a significant increase in computer awareness.

In 2020, Singapore started the Advanced Manufacturing Training Academy which focuses on preparing the manufacturing workforce for the challenges and opportunities of 4th Industrial Revolution technologies. There’ s more. When I examine the national Manufacturing 2030 plan, it's evident that Singapore is fully committed to embracing these technologies.

In fact, Singapore created the globally recognized framework Smart Industry Readiness Index together with the World Economic Forum to help manufacturers assess their digital maturity. Smart.

What about Web3 in Singapore?

Singapore is embracing Web3 and is exploring how blockchain can be used for decentralized finance, tokenization, and digital asset innovation. Over 57% of adults in Singapore own cryptocurrency, but the preferred way of payment is still fiat currency. In Scandinavia, only approximately 7% of the population owns cryptocurrency, while in Germany, the figure stands at 6%, in the UK at 8%, and in the US at 15%.

Hear this! Singapore does not impose any capital gains tax on profits from buying and selling cryptocurrencies.

Lately, cryptocurrency usage has gone down in Singapore due to the prevailing problems of crypto exchange crashes and frauds, but all technological developments will have their ups and downs. To address concerns like money laundering and investor protection, Singapore is introducing fresh new rules while still supporting crypto innovation. By creating a supportive regulatory environment, Singapore has attracted major players in the crypto space and is now a major center for Web3 innovation.

What else does the government in Singapore do?

Singapore is recognized for its clear and steady regulatory approach towards blockchain and crypto. It offers funding and mentorship to startups developing innovative blockchain solutions. The Monetary Authority of Singapore has established a S$225 million Financial Sector Technology and Innovation scheme, with S$75 million specifically allocated for blockchain and distributed ledger technology projects. That’s what I call trust in innovation!

“It should be called the Fourth Industrial Evolution.” Because what we are experiencing with the merging of digital, physical, and biological technologies are inevitable developments. It’s an evolution of society that offers brand new opportunities for innovation, effectiveness, and prosperity. Trying to block the inevitable is senseless.

Following in the footsteps of Singapore will likely lead to economic advantages. With a strong manufacturing sector, the country can use 4th Industrial Revolution technologies to boost innovation and productivity, making it more competitive globally. Singapore's positive approach attracts foreign investment and skilled workers, and government-supported programs encourage new ideas and businesses in blockchain and robotics. Singapore’s clear emphasis on improving the skills of its workforce is sending a clear message. I say, Singapore is set to thrive in the digital era.