Like many people who’ve been following the blockchain space for a long time, I try to learn, unlearn and revise my opinions on it. I’m going to try to capture where my views stand as of November 2018 in different posts, dedicated to very different parts of the ecosystem that could end up creating trillions in future value:
As we try to imagine the possible outcomes for different categories, it’s important to stay humble and beware of predictions. Black swans bite hard. But if you force me to make predictions, I’m bullish on Bitcoin, even more bullish on its category (cash and store-of-value) as a whole, and bearish about web 3.0.
Note: I deliberately avoid discussing private blockchains. They have nothing to offer over well-designed, well-built software that uses no blockchains. Between trusting parties, any use of blockchain isn’t only pointless, but also a terrible design choice (my post about web 3.0 might give you an idea about why). Suitsdon’tgetfiredforchoosingprivateblockchainsin2018, but they most likely should.
Thanks to my friends Matthieu Courtin (Kenetic), Kenrick Drijkoningen (GGV) and Benjamin Joffe (HAX) for their thoughtful feedback & contributions.
Web 3.0 (also known as “the decentralized web” or simply the emerging space of decentralized networks and applications) is the crypto category that everyone should be watching in the next few years. Thousands of founders, funds and media outlets make daily claims that cash and store-of-value were just the beginning, and that just like the unsuspecting earthlings of 1995, we’re about to witness the emergence of massive, world-changing applications powered by blockchains.
It’s too early to make outlandish predictions, but it doesn’t prevent many people from making them. What I’ll try to do in this post is boil the situation down to a list of observations and key questions that I’m asking myself when thinking about the future of web 3.0.
Let’s start with some observations:
Blockchains are not unique enablers for any app. Unique enabler is what smartphones were for Uber. Technically, 100% of the apps that could be built with blockchain could also be built with any commercially available database
However, blockchains differ from regular apps by providing “unbreakable guarantees”: they are permissionless, censorship-resistant and out of the control of any single entity. They predefine roles and rules for all participants
Those guarantees appeal to some people because they imply openness, competition, true ownership, technocracy, freedom and free market
Those guarantees come at a cost for users who use blockchain products. We live in a world where many people can’t do simple foreign exchange math. As of 2018, using the decentralized web requires understanding technical concepts such as private keys, using a new set of software tools and managing an inventory of different utility tokens to consume different services. Users also have to accept the finality of disasters such as loss of private keys, and the fact that often there is no customer support phone number to call when the worst happens
Those guarantees also come at a cost for founders, compared to traditional tech businesses. Founders who take a radical decentralized route can’t use the world’s most advanced cloud infrastructure (AWS, for example). They can’t charge dollars for their services. They put sky high barriers in front of potential users (from obtaining utility tokens to installing special software). They sacrifice governance and the ability to iterate and change their product over time, which is a fact of life in tech startups. They have to think about liquidity and choose one blockchain to live exclusively on, because blockchains aren’t interoperable yet
The internet is where it is today because it made life convenient for users and founders. But the success of the decentralized web doesn’t seem to be about convenience as much as it’s about values. I think about web 3.0 as a version of the internet that trades convenience for better values.
I’ve been a believer in the cash and store-of-value category in crypto ever since I discovered Bitcoin in 2013. I made public bull cases for Bitcoin when it was at 450 USD and 4,500 USD, and my views haven’t changed much since. Bitcoin still solves the problems it was designed to solve, and it continues to be a primary choice for new dollars in crypto, suggesting that the Lindy effect is at play.
What’s new is that many experimental siblings within this category are trying to give Bitcoin a run for its money. This includes privacy coins (ZCash) claiming “taking privacy further is better”, stablecoins (Basis) claiming “price stability will change everything”, other faster-cheaper-better-performing coins (Nano) claiming “speed, cost of transfer and scalability will change everything” or design-first-coins (Eco) claiming “carefully designed networks and user experiences will change everything”.
All those fresh approaches are very interesting, but they haven’t been compelling enough to challenge bitcoin’s value and liquidity. It’s pointless to try to predict the future of Bitcoin or the rest of the category. The outcome will likely be shaped by a small number of black swan events (geopolitical, financial, regulatory or cybersecurity related).
There’s merit to the idea that Bitcoin itself is antifragile, but there’s a bigger point I love: even if something breaks Bitcoin, the cash and store-of-value category stands to evolve and even gain from it in the long term.
What if someone built an antivirus to monitor online finance and detect financial crime in real time?
This is a whitepaper I wrote ahead of an IOSCO summit in Toronto in 2017 (involving ~20 leading financial regulators). I was trying to suggest something new: a smart, efficient, automated tool that regulators can use to scan the internet and enforce crimes and breaches of regulation in real time.
As far as consumer protection goes, financial regulators were designed as “sheriff’s offices”. For many years, they were in control at the “small towns” they were tasked with protecting. But the internet has made the financial services industry less of a small town and more like Gotham City: huge, dynamic, chaotic and full of crime. The recent rise of cryptocurrencies and ICO’s only makes it clearer that enforcing regulations today is a whole different task, and regulators are under-equipped to perform it.
This work is the result of a few conversations with Bendicte Nolens, the Head of Strategy at the SFC (the independent statutory body charged with regulating the securities and futures markets in Hong Kong – the equivalent of the SEC in the US).
I still don’t know if it’s a company worth starting. But I believe it’s at least an idea worth sharing. Would love to hear your feedback.
I like the story of CLS (Continuous Linked Settlement), one of the most boring and important institutions in global finance. CLS is the world leader in FX settlement. It was launched in 2002, and just like with many other important things in the world, very few people have heard about it. That’s what I like about it. Also, the story of CLS is the perfect argument for one of my favorite quotes: “the older the problem, the older the solution”.
Now let’s talk about blockchain. When you give a little kid a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Blockchain is still a hammer looking for nails. Over 2016 it has been hailed as the future of insurance, identity, exchange and property tracking– mostly by people without skin in the game (media, banks, governments and consultants). Meanwhile, founders & VC’s with skin in the game, who tackle big problems in finance, are usually not talking about blockchain and not using it. Here are some of them: m-Pesa, LTSE, Lemonade, YueBao, LendingClub, Wealthfront. Isn’t it strange?
Technology serves us best when it solves a real problem. The financial system has huge problems: financial inclusion, friction in payments, low access to asset management, system risk from off-balance sheet derivatives… we can go on and on. Is blockchain, a database that someone invented in 2008, the solution to these problems that have existed for dozens/hundreds of years?
Let’s take an example. Can you use a blockchain to simplify and improve the settlement process in the FX market, assome articles suggest? Yes, you can. Blockchain is a database, and you can build anything with it. But would you?
From the startup in 2008 to date, we announced at least 10 unique partnerships between Leverate and other companies. They cost tons and, at times, took all the brainpower and sweat we had. Every single one of these partnerships has failed (channel partners aside).
When I listen to startup founders, I sometimes notice the abuse of the word “partner”, and it reminds me just how unclear we were around the partnerships we took. I’ve heard this word from startup founders to describe what I would otherwise call “client”, “vendor”, “distribution channel”, “an opportunity to get some PR”, “another company that we want to have an integration with because it’s cool” or in the worst case “an established company in the industry who thinks we’re neat but we’re not sure what’s in it for us or them”.
Undefined partnerships are dangerous. And they often come with the promise of some PR, especially in fintech, where banks and consulting companies enjoy setting up accelerators and hanging out with the cool kids (startups). This has been funnily described as the fintech zoo. An executive at a bank or established company may talk to a startup about partnership opportunities that can generate a mention or two in the press, but…
In the previous post, I shared a few notes on internal communication in tech companies. In this post, I’ll take a step back to discuss what types of communication exist in a tech company, highlighting cross-department communication. For each type of communication, I will discuss the tools that can serve you best… and worst.
Here are the kinds of communication that I noticed along the years at Leverate:
Boards = lists that departments maintain so that everyone in the company can check them out. Boards will usually reflect recent work, so their contents will change with time. Examples:
Next releases board– maintained by the product team
Latest sales board– maintained by the sales team
This month’s lead numbers board– maintained by the marketing department
This month’s birthdays board– maintained by the HR team
This year’s holidays in our offices worldwide– maintained by the HR team
Boards can come in different flavors:
Crucial for day-to-day work OR a nice-to-have transparency tool
Designed for internal communication in the department OR designed for communicating to other departments
If you ever worked in a sales team, you’ve most likely seen a board that sales leaders love: the monthly leader board. Nothing invites more motivation and focus than these cold hard numbers on the wall.
When shared cross-department, boards are perhaps the most simple and to-the-point transparency tool that I’ve seen. People love them (when they’re up-to-date, of course), and they create a feeling of accountability among critical departments. I highly encourage founders to introduce a board for product, sales and marketing to reflect releases, sales data and marketing data respectively.
What do we need in a board tool?
Public– anyone can easily check out boards
Collaborative– anyone can create boards, then quickly edit / comment / like items
Good lookin’– it’s nice to add some colors or communicate planning vs. execution with a ‘dashboardy’ feeling
Topics & subscriptions– would be nice if people can subscribe for specific boards (e.g. next releases) and get notified on updates
Interactive– it would be nice to click an item (e.g. a specific planned release) to get more information (the release notes)
Recommended tools for boards:
The board feature in daPulse
A public Google Spreadsheet
Build your own– home-made boards are always an option: in some offices I’ve seen TV screens projecting retention, sales and even revenues data to all employees
The wrong tool: emails
Shouts = casual cross-department announcements. Usually to the entire company. Usually happy. You don’t know exactly when they will come. They’ll stick around for a couple of days and then they will get washed away. Examples for shouts in a tech company are:
An introduction of a new key employee that everybody needs to know, including a picture of them with their dog
An announcement from the CEO about last week’s acquisition
Pictures from the crazy team building night that the marketing department had last week, including that video of the VP Marketing dancing on a bar table that will haunt her forever
An announcement from the VP sales on the epic performance of the sales team during Jan & Feb, including a chart
What do we need in a shout tool?
Notifies everyone, but minimizes spam– shouts are cool, and sometimes you want to announce something to all, but people don’t like getting 12 random emails per week. Better find a tool that minimizes announcements to all, aggregates notifications and lets people choose their topic(s) of interest
Social– anyone should be able shout on any topic, because everyone has something interesting to celebrate every now and then. A good tool will let other people quickly like / comment on the shouts. It’s also nice to see who in the company read the shout
Allows attachments– it’s nice and engaging when shouts come with an inline chart, picture or video
Recommended tools for shouts:
Posts in Facebook at Work, daPulse or Yammer
Emails (not ideal)
The wrong tools: your company wiki, Trello
#3 Knowledge bases
Knowledge base = an evolving collection of articles and media items. Think about a company-wide wiki. Knowledge bases are naturally different from boards and shouts because they contain information that you want to evolve and stay long term.
Examples for knowledge bases in a tech company are: