Tag: The fourth industrial revolution

Categories
web3

What Web3 Can Learn from Past Industrial Revolutions

What Web3 Can Learn from Past Industrial Revolutions

History reminds us that no industrial revolution—from the steam engine to the assembly line—has been solely defined by its economic potential. Each era of transformation has eventually bent toward addressing deeper human needs, whether through labor reforms or environmental considerations. As I look at the Web3 space, while profit remains a powerful catalyst, societal values will ultimately shape its trajectory. Soon.

Web3 holds great promise
Blockchain technology, decentralized finance (DeFi), and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) promise unprecedented levels of efficiency, transparency, and inclusivity. But let’s be honest. These systems are being built with the same profit-driven logic that fueled past revolutions. Just as mechanized textile production slashed costs during the First Industrial Revolution, blockchain platforms aim to streamline global transactions, reduce intermediaries, and unlock new markets. More money is created to address inefficiencies left by previous industrial shifts.

We are witnessing the migration of physical assets onto digital ledgers. Real estate, art, intellectual property—these are just some examples of tangible goods being tokenized for easier trade and management. Financial instruments such as stablecoins and liquidity pools offer investors access to previously inaccessible opportunities. This shift mirrors earlier eras when railroads connected distant markets or electricity powered factories. We did this to enable exponential growth. However, much like those transformations, Web3's initial focus on profit overlooks critical questions about equity, ethics, and sustainability.

Lessons from history
History does not repeat, but it sure seems to rhyme. The consequences of unchecked profit-seeking are clear. During the First Industrial Revolution, mechanization brought immense wealth but also dehumanizing working conditions. Factories turned workers into "cogs in a machine," subjecting them to grueling hours and unsafe environments. Similarly, the Second Industrial Revolution's emphasis on mass production further centralized power, leaving many marginalized. Let me tell you, working in the Ford factory in New Jersey in 1913 was no picnic.

It wasn't until widespread social unrest and advocacy movements forced governments and industries to reconsider their priorities that meaningful reforms emerged. Labor laws, safety regulations, and fair wages became cornerstones of modern employment practices. Likewise, the environmental crises of the mid-20th century prompted a reevaluation of industrial growth, leading to policies aimed at preserving natural resources and promoting sustainability.

Moreover, the push for regulation highlights a broader truth: societies tend to respond reactively rather than proactively. We often wait for crises to unfold before implementing solutions. In the public health field, we have started to consider the health consequences of letting companies freely produce and market unhealthy foods. In this discussion, the crashes of FTX and Terra Luna serve as wake-up calls, forcing us to confront the limitations of unregulated markets. By learning from these failures, we can be smarter in the Web3 ecosystem.

The role of regulation
These incidents underscore a growing demand for regulation—a socially constructed need born out of necessity. Governments around the world are now scrambling to establish frameworks that protect consumers while fostering innovation. After all, few would board an airplane without confidence in aviation safety standards.

Regulation in Web3 is not merely a bureaucratic imposition; I say it reflects society's evolving understanding of what constitutes sensible innovation. Much like labor laws were crafted to address exploitation in previous industrial revolutions, regulatory measures in Web3 aim to safeguard against fraud, manipulation, and environmental harm. For instance, concerns about the energy consumption of proof-of-work blockchains have already spurred shifts toward more sustainable alternatives like proof-of-stake, and a growing part of Bitcoin mining is powered by green energy.

Glimmers of hope in Web3 projects
Already, we see glimmers of hope in projects focused on environmental sustainability, financial inclusion, and community empowerment. Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are experimenting with governance models that prioritize collective decision-making. Tokenized carbon credits are incentivizing climate action. Microfinance platforms are extending credit to underserved populations worldwide. This is great.

Yet, the future of Web3 lies at the intersection of technological advancement and human-centered values. Take real-world assets, for example. As physical assets continue to go online, they will increasingly be managed in ways that align with sound environmental values and social justice. In the traditional financial sector, these are called ESG funds, sustainable funds, and responsible investment funds. Banks optimizing cross-border transactions will do so with energy-smart, low-cost, and efficient blockchain technology. Some companies tokenizing real estate will ensure more equitable distribution of benefits. Investors trading NFTs may support artists who contribute positively to their communities. These opportunities are unique in this industrial revolution.

Learning from the past
In a way, it is frustrating that we seem to be repeating past mistakes, but we can address them earlier than we did before. Like previous industrial revolutions, Web3 will evolve through trial and error, shaped largely by market forces. But if history teaches us anything, it is that profit alone cannot sustain progress. People and our values can.

Categories
Business & Society

The Elephant in the Room: Global Inequality and Web3’s Potential

The Elephant in the Room: Global Inequality and Web3's Potential

The elephant curve reveals a blunt reality: inequality is stark reality in the global economy. I couldn't help but wonder if Web3 could help bridge the gap between the wealthy and the struggling. Here's what I discovered. The Elephant Curve chart, created by economist Branko Milanovic, tracks global income growth from 1988 to 2008. It shows two peaks: one for the growing middle class in emerging economies like China and India, and one for the ultra-rich. The dip, or "trunk," shows the struggles of the working and middle classes in developed countries.

In the late 20th century, globalization took off with trade liberalization, new technology, and companies moved parts of their production or services to countries with lower labor costs. This reshaped the global supply chain. Developing nations thrived, creating jobs and lifting millions out of poverty. But in the U.S. and much of Europe, the middle and working classes struggled as manufacturing jobs disappeared, wages stayed flat, and economic security declined. It appears that Sweden's experience with the elephant curve reflects increased income inequality driven by capital gains at the top.

Why care? In short, economic imbalance in society has led to the political and social unrest we see today. Populist movements are increasing, and we are now aware that globalization may not be fair. We need to be vigilant to create a better world.

I thought we had learned something, but the updated elephant curve data, extending to 2016, shows otherwise. After 2008, income growth in emerging economies slowed, and inequality at the top only worsened. The ultra-wealthy aren’t just taking bigger slices of the pie—they’re baking entirely new pies. Between 1980 and 2016, the top 1% captured over 27% of global income growth, while the poorest half of the world barely saw 12%. It’s clear that progress hasn’t been shared equally.

Regionally, the global middle class saw mixed fortunes. In East Asia, rapid industrialization fueled rising incomes, while regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America saw stagnating growth. In advanced economies, the middle class continued to hollow out, with wages often failing to keep up with inflation. Looking ahead to 2050, researchers warn that inequality could either deepen or lessen, depending on the policies we choose today.

I wonder, will economic divides widen, creating a world of prosperity for a few, surrounded by growing discontent? What to do?

Here’s where I see Web3’s true potential. I won’t dive into the usual buzzwords like decentralization, transparency, or community ownership—you know the drill. Web3, the decentralized internet built on blockchain, offers a chance to rethink our economic systems. Unlike today’s internet, controlled by a few powerful corporations, Web3 promises a fairer, more equitable future. Beyond cryptocurrency, Web3 includes DeFi, DAOs, NFTs, and new ways of managing digital ownership, all aiming to break the control of banks, governments, and big tech. Oops, I guess I slipped into the basics after all. I have a distinct feeling that I need to mention memecoins.

I think Trumpcoin and Fartcoin are both a way to gamble but also an urge to try to beat inflation and rising costs. Remember, we live in an era when traditional investments feel inaccessible for many, memecoins invite newcomers into the fight for financial opportunity. At their core, memecoins embody Web3's inclusive values: anyone with internet access can participate. However, the reality is often harsher. The general sentiment is that 70-80% of memecoin investors lose money due to high volatility, scams, or poor timing. For every success story, there are many more of financial losses, often felt most by those who can least afford it.

Anyway, Web3's promise of inclusion raises another crucial question: Could it unintentionally create a technocracy? This is a world where those with early access, technical expertise, or control over blockchain infrastructure hold disproportionate power. The National Bureau of Economic Research shows that the richest 1% of Bitcoin holders control more than 27% of the total supply. This is mirroring traditional financial inequalities. We want to move away from that right!? Similarly, DAOs, while promising on paper, often see decision-making concentrated among a small group of highly engaged or wealthy participants. So, what world are we creating here? The same?

Decentralized finance (DeFi) could open up access to capital, especially in areas with limited banking services. DAOs enable communities to make decisions together, bypassing centralized authorities. Meanwhile, NFT technology has the potential to revolutionize intellectual property rights, giving artists and creators unprecedented control over their work. This is just the beginning of what Web3 could unlock.

But as we build this new system, we must ask: Who benefits? To me, it seems that we are merely replicating the power dynamics of the old system in a shiny new technological wrapper.

To make sure Web3 benefits everyone, we need intentional action. Policymakers must create regulations to protect newcomers from exploitation, developers need to prioritize equity in their designs, and communities must hold power accountable to stop wealth from concentrating. Only then can we unlock Web3’s true potential for all.

We must ask: How can innovations like Web3 help create a fairer economy? Yes, it can—if we ask the right questions while building it. We need to have that conversation.

That’s why I created the Proof of Good Pledge. By signing it, you can join the movement, get rewards, and be part of the solution. Because to me, the elephant curve—where the gap between the haves and the have-nots keeps widening—feels less like a warning and more like a prediction already coming true.

If you're ready to make a difference, sign the pledge and let’s start shaping a fairer future together. Join the conversation here.

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

Why Values Must Be the Core of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Why Values Must Be the Core of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

I believe, strongly, that we’re at a pivotal moment in history. The Fourth Industrial Revolution and its technologies are transforming the way we live, work, and connect. As we try to navigate these societal transformations, one thing is clear: values are not just a nice-to-have; they must be at the heart of everything we build. I say, “Values must be a core feature in the digital era.”

Why Values Matter in Technological Innovation
Values shape how we live in society, and they will define the success or failure of the technological systems we create. Without them, innovation risks becoming cold, impersonal, or even harmful. But when we intentionally embed human values—like fairness, accountability, and transparency—into our systems, technology can become a force for empowerment and trust. Let’s remember:

“Technology reflects who we are.”

It seems that we often get caught up in the "coolness" of new, shiny tools. Let’s build! But remember, we’ve seen how technology without values can leave people behind. In the age of Web2, for example, social media platforms exploded with promise, only to later expose cracks—privacy violations, misinformation, and algorithms that prioritize profit over well-being.

The truth is, problems from previous industrial revolutions still exist because those systems failed to center values. Some people are still unbanked and don’t even have internet access. It didn’t have to become that way, but I think it was a system lacking human-centered values.

Web3: A Second Chance to Build Better Systems
Web3 gives us a second chance. It’s a chance to build digital systems that reflect who we are and what we care about as humans. We have seen the future: a world where creators get fair compensation for their work, where users own their data, and where transparency isn’t just a buzzword but a fundamental design principle. These aren’t just technical features—they’re values in action.

Sure, some people don’t care. But I have a feeling that many of us are tired of feeling powerless in the face of technological giants. Web3 promises to give power back to individuals and communities. However, decentralization on its own doesn’t guarantee fairness. That’s why it’s crucial to design these systems with trust, inclusivity, and accountability baked in from the start. Values.

If we want Web3 projects to serve everyone, we need to actively consider issues like accessibility. Who gets to participate in this new economy? Who benefits from it? Designing for inclusion isn’t automatic; it’s a value-driven choice.

The Risks of Ignoring Values
When we treat values like annoying things to fix later, we risk creating systems that exclude, exploit, or harm people—again. But when we treat values as features, we get something mindfully transformative. I know it may not sound as sexy as the PornRocket token , but prioritizing fairness and shared ownership is good for society. We need to remind ourselves that code doesn’t build a better society—values do.

Creating a Future That Works for Everyone
If we embed human values into our technology, we can create a world where innovation works for everyone. But it’s not going to happen by accident. Regulators, developers, and users like you and me need to push for systems that reflect what we believe in. I say fairness, inclusion, and sustainability is a start. Let’s start that conversation today.

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

Ignorance in Web3: How Media and Government Widen the Digital Divide

Mainstream media and many government agencies across the world are significant contributors to a digital divide in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Rapid advancements in technology demand a high level of understanding and adaptability in society in order to fulfill the promises of equality, increased economic growth, and to meet the complex global challenges through advancements in tech and innovation. Yet, ignorance, particularly concerning Web3 and cryptocurrencies, is threatening to undermine the collective progress of the digital era. What is happening, and what is needed?
Cryptobeyer

Martin Luther King Jr.'s warning about the dangers of "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" rings truer than ever. The consequences of such ignorance are far-reaching, affecting everything from privacy and security to economic equality and regulatory clarity.

Mainstream media and some government agencies have been significant contributors to this growing issue. By failing to adequately understand and convey the complexities of Web3 technologies, they are inadvertently fueling the digital divide.

Web3, which promises enhanced privacy, security, and individual control of data, remains underutilized partly due to misinformation and mistrust propagated by those who should be guiding us through this technological evolution.

On April 14, 2024, an article titled "4 Reasons Not to Invest in Cryptocurrencies" was published on the website of the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority. The piece is misleading and unconvincing, displaying a frustrating level of ignorance. The article lists familiar and tired arguments: poor customer protection, volatile value, environmental harm, and use in money laundering and terrorism. Those of us familiar with the crypto space have heard these claims countless times, and it's not even funny anymore. Scary! The article also lacks facts and references to support its arguments.

Do not get me started on the terrible way the US-based Securities and Exchange Commission is handling the cryptocurrency space… companies are fleeing the US.

Please learn about the space you are regulating!

The media, in particular, often portrays cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies through a lens of skepticism and fear. This narrative not only spreads misinformation but also fosters a deep mistrust of innovations that could otherwise bring about significant societal benefits. When the public is bombarded with headlines that emphasize volatility and criminal use over potential and progress, it becomes challenging to foster a well-informed and forward-thinking populace.

What more?

Policymakers frequently lack a deep understanding of emerging technologies, leading to regulatory environments that either stifle innovation or fail to offer necessary protections. This regulatory ambiguity can dissuade legitimate enterprises from exploring new technological frontiers and leaves consumers unprotected against genuine risks.

I would say that the lack of knowledgeable oversight is a direct consequence of the broader issue of ignorance, and it underscores the urgent need for informed and responsive governments that adapt to changing circumstances, people’s needs, and new technologies.
-Cryptobeyer

Furthermore, those who are left behind due to a lack of knowledge or access to these technologies face increasing economic disparities. This growing gap between the tech-savvy and those who are not only exacerbates social inequality but also hinders overall economic growth.

I’m reminded of what Singapore has done multiple times since the 1960s to educate the population in being ready for the technological journey. Impressive.

To navigate the Fourth Industrial Revolution successfully, public awareness and inclusive access to technology must be in focus. Education and transparent communication about the benefits and risks of Web3 are essential. Media outlets need to strive for balanced reporting that highlights potential as well as pitfalls.

I dare to say that this is obvious! Governments should prioritize regulatory clarity, ensuring that policies are informed by a thorough understanding of the technologies they aim to regulate.

Let’s not let ignorance and misinformation hold us back.

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.

Categories
Business & Society

Beyond Gadgetry: Real Challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

One of the clearest indicators of any industrial revolution is how technology impacts our daily lives. The Fourth Industrial Revolution reshapes our daily lives through tech like smartphones, AI, and automation, altering industries with robots and online platforms. From healthcare to finance, it's changing how we work and interact, with automation set to replace 49% of global tasks. Blockchain adds secure voting and financial inclusion, highlighting its profound impact on our economy and society.

However, amidst these changes, I wonder “What lies ahead?”

The sheer breadth and depth of technological progress in any industrial revolution seem difficult to predict. As in life itself, the unimaginable is seen and understood in hindsight.

There will be technological advancements that continue to outpace our abilities to adapt. But a few aspects seem likely. The boundaries between the virtual and physical world are narrowing with innovations such as the Internet of Things (IoT) and augmented reality (AR). Gene editing is revolutionizing industries ranging from healthcare to manufacturing, creating synergies that were previously unimaginable.

It’s somewhat easy to see that we can expect further advancements in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. Physical objects are going digital, creating a new market for trade through tokenization. Nonetheless I do think that unimaginable is a telling word for this industrial revolution.

Let’s move beyond smart gadgets. We need to consider the following when striving for a better world within the Fourth Industrial Revolution that we are experiencing.

As technologies like artificial intelligence and big data analytics become more sophisticated, there is a risk of privacy infringements and data breaches. Individuals must have control over their personal information and be able to trust that it will be used responsibly and ethically. It will be vital to stay true to the sound core values of web3 where people own their own data.

Equity is another critical consideration, as technological advancements have the potential to exacerbate existing inequalities within society. Access to and the benefits of emerging technologies should be distributed equitably to ensure that marginalized communities are not left behind. For example, decentralized blockchain technologies and can be used in finance to offer people access to banking services. Robust digital infrastructure, including high-speed internet access and reliable communication networks, is obviously crucial for everyone.

There is a need to safeguard fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the right to privacy. As technologies like facial recognition, surveillance systems, and predictive algorithms become more prevalent, there is a risk of infringing on these rights if not implemented and regulated appropriately. Governments and regulatory bodies should establish clear and transparent regulations governing the use of emerging technologies.

Remember, the aim is to use technology for the benefit of everyone while minimizing any harm it may cause. We need a debate about the challenges of the fourth industrial revolution in a manner that enhances the well-being of all people.

I know it’s not as flashy as Apple's latest overpriced doodad, but in this technological change, we must be mindful. Let’s be smart, folks! It’s time to lead with ethics, respect folks' rights, and make sure everyone gets a fair deal of these transformative developments.