Hey, WTF's Going On?

Well may you ask! I'm assuming you're referring to Trump 2.0: Revenge of the Musk? 

Well I've learned that this is a coup planned among Musk, Thiel and Sacks (Trump's new "Crypto Czar"), the South African members of  the PayPal mafia, with input from Thiel lieutenant, Vice President J.D. Vance. You can read a summary of The Plan by Gil Duran of the Nerd Reich, who has understandably experienced a surge in subscribers since January 20.

“Trump himself will not be the brain …He will not be the CEO. He will be the chairman of the board—he will select the CEO (an experienced executive). This process, which obviously has to be televised, will be complete by his inauguration—at which the transition to the next regime will start immediately.”

With Musk as the “CEO”, they are systematically rebuilding the US government as if it were post-war Japan. They are replacing federal employees with their own “ninjas” - and extending this to academia and the media. They’re ignoring the courts and “paper protections”, as Vance told them to: 

I think that what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people. 

This is an illegal and overt attempt to seize control of the US government. A coup.

You can spot the growth of the techno aspect of their "New Reality" in Google's 2014 declaration of war on the human race and the creed of the techno-optimists. And much I've observed on these pages in between.

Much was made of their $1m 'donation' to attend the Orange Leader's inauguration, but you have to wonder whether Zuckerberg and the other tech oligarchs who were then featured in the front row were also in on the plan - or just presented as if they were.

Can America's institutions hold out? Or will the Republican Party remain complicit in the plan - wittingly or unwittingly?

Or is it too late?

Also bear in mind the leaders of this coup also have the world in their sights, riding the rails of their own borderless technology - AI, crypto meme coins and bubbling bitcoin and the social media - and they're attacking copyright and AI regulation worldwide in an attempt to free-ride on our privacy and creative content and make it their own. 

Now that Musk and the nerds from DOGE control the federal government IT and payment systems, you could replace Mad Marjorie Taylor Greene's "jewish space laser" geoengineering conspiracy theory with a Tesla-Starlink cyborg network fueled by $TRUMP meme coins bought with US government money.  

It's in our power to simply stop using their tech, and there are plenty of independent providers of social media, search, email and so on. 

Or is it too late?

$TRUMP: A ShiteCoin Fit For Dangerously Weird Times... "Doom Is The Operative Ethic"

Source

Just when you thought the world couldn't get any weirder, the "anti-woke" US President-elect decided to celebrate "Winning!" the leadership of the Free World by dancing at his own personal rally to the tune of a gay anthem and bleeding his fans of their cash with the launch of a dodgy cryptocurrency (slamming the campaign cryptocurrency they'd already bought). 

But, hey, this is just the start. Wait til you see how it ends...

While teams of lawyers pore over Trump's latest droppings like big game hunters tracking their prey on safari, most pundits will probably consider these brazen acts as simply 'Trump being Trump'. 

But Machiavelli will be pounding at the lid of his coffin. He advised that a good ruler should strive to appear wholly compassionate, loyal, humane, honest and religious, yet know how to occasionally act otherwise when required. A good ruler must not seize or steal their subjects' property or be seen as "changeable, superficial...." A good ruler's choice of ministers will immediately demonstrate to the country either "good sense or lack of it" - they must be intelligent people with permission to tell the ruler the truth, rather than flatterers. Above all, he wrote:

"...a ruler must avoid any behaviour that will lead to being hated or held in contempt."

...because Machiavelli had witnessed firsthand not even an army or castle can save a ruler who becomes generally loathed by the people (as the intervening centuries have demonstrated time and again).

Trump will not buck this trend. It's one thing to flip two fingers at prosecutors and blather about the 'swamp' and the 'deep state'. But it's quite another to flip from anti-crypto in 2021 to rabidly pro-crypto, hire a bunch of flatterers to your cabinet and then openly grab money from the people who voted you into office.

The Orange One's legion of followers are what Hunter S. Thompson christened 'the New Dumb'. Aside from the 'marks' or unwitting victims who actually believe all the nonsense, Trump's fans are drawn from among fauxpro-wrestling fans, conspiracy theorists and other keepers of the Trump's special brand of Covfefe 'kayfabe'. Moths to a populist flame fanned by fake news, behavioural targeting, bizarre fundraising schemes, meme coins and tacky souvenirs, televised rallies, criminal trials, and fat donations from self-interested vulture capitalists. These people are not "dumb" in the sense of being necessarily stupid or lacking in intelligence, but in the sense that they believe themselves to lack a voice in a complex world they see as run by, and for, a mysterious group of 'others' who are known only by epithets like the "deep state", the "new world order", "liberals", "libtards"...

But now these people can see that their Dear Leader is simply mistaking them for idiots and lining his pockets at their expense [update via CoinDesk here].

Writing in 2000 after years of successfully deriding Richard Nixon, Hunter S. Thompson never bothered to comment directly on Trump, presumably because he viewed Trump as just a symptom, if not a portent, of doom. Remember that Trump first openly talked of running for President in 1988 and actually tried in 2000. Thompson would merely have seen it as another confirmation of his thesis if he'd stuck around to see Trump eventually conspire his way into office twice - to Make America Groan Again - rising to power like a slow-festering boil during what Hunter Thompson described in his article on The New Dumb as "dangerously weird times". For that reason it's best to simply leave you with his words:

"We have seen Weird Times in this country before, but the year 2000 is beginning to look super weird. This time, there really is nobody flying the plane. ... We are living in dangerously weird times now. Smart people just shrug and admit they're dazed and confused.

The only ones left with any confidence at all are the New Dumb. It is the beginning of the end of our world as we knew it. Doom is the operative ethic...

Look around you. There is an eerie sense of Panic in the air, a silent Fear and Uncertainty that comes with once-reliable faiths and truths and solid Institutions that are no longer safe to believe in. ... There is a Presidential Election, right on schedule, but somehow there is no President. A new Congress is elected, like always, but somehow there is no real Congress at all -- not as we knew it, anyway, and whatever passes for Congress will be as helpless and weak as Whoever has to pass for the "New President."

If this were the world of sports, it would be like playing a Super Bowl that goes into 19 scoreless Overtimes and never actually Ends..."

You Pay For Social Media, AI and Crypto Via Your Utility Bills

Households consume the most electricity in the UK. That's why the huge surge in global energy prices following the expansion of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 prompted the government to invoke price caps and handouts to protect consumers (and businesses) from bankruptcy, along with private energy providers who failed to manage their market exposures. Yet few have noticed that the world's computing data centres, including those hosting artificial intelligence platforms, already consume enough energy to power entire countries and compete with humans for vast amounts of fresh water. Crypto-currencies also require huge amounts of energy to 'mine'. So, not only are you paying for many 'free' online services with your personal data, you're also paying through your energy and water bills. And based on the advertising and other revenues from your participation, Big Tech can afford to outspend you. To illustrate the challenge, the UK government just announced a massive new Microsoft AI facility in London, even as Thames Water circles the drain and lack of capacity in the UK's national grid is delaying the construction of new homes, renewable energy projects and electric vehicle charging points. Given these costs and shortages, should we be speculating in bitcoin and using generative AI (either for fun or to do things we could do for ourselves)?

How much power does the latest consumer technology use?

While consumer electronics only account for 6% of household usage, that doesn't account for the centralised data processing among digital media and gaming platforms, for example, when you participate online. As a result, households are responsible for 35% of electricity usage, services 29% and industry 30%. You might argue that much of this data centre capacity is used by businesses, but many of them do so ultimately to serve consumers - from online search, shopping and social media services to powering giant credit card networks. 

Artificial intelligence, however, operates at a whole new level above the more traditional digital media. A Netflix fan would have to have watched 1,625,000 hours of content to use the same amount of power it took to train OpenAI's ChatGPT 3.0 during 2022, according to a Dutch researcher. Generating a single image from text on other AI platforms costs the same amount in energy as charging your smartphone.

The same Dutch researcher has estimated that the AI sector alone will use as much power as the Netherlands by 2027, while the International Energy Agency predicts that the world's data centres (including AI and other digital media) will consume the double the amount of electricity in 2026 that they consumed in 2022 - about as much as Japan (the 5th largest electricity consumer in the world, behind China, the US, India and Russia).  

Bitcoin mining - an activity whose sole purpose is to feed the world's first and largest distributed Ponzi scheme - absorbed nearly 1% of the world's electricity in 2023 - enough to power Greece or Australia. That's up to 5 times the cost of legacy payment systems that process vastly more transactions (though they also use enough to electricity to power Portugal or Bangladesh).

How much water does the latest consumer technology use?

Data centres also consume vast amounts of water (not counting what they recycle) to cool the computers and humidify the internal air. But even the process of generating the electricity they use also consumes water. 

In 2021, for example, Google's data centers consumed approximately 4.3 billion gallons of water (16.3 billion litres), an average of 450,000 gallons (1.7m litres) of water per data centre each day. Microsoft reckoned that it consumed 1.7 billion gallons (nearly 6.5 billion litres) in 2022.

Gridlock

The surge in energy and water usage by future-gazing tech providers comes at a time when Britain's infrastructure is already failing to support the construction of new and more energy efficient homes, renewable energy sources and the switch away from diesel and petrol vehicles.

“Nationally, we’ve got an absolute ­crisis in all infrastructure.” Plans by Michael Gove, the housing secretary, to build 150,000 homes in Cambridge to create a British Silicon Valley were already being hampered by lack of water... “And where’s the power coming from? Something fundamental has to change...”

"...90 new homes in the Littlemore district had been meant to have heat pumps. “The National Grid basically said ‘we won’t have enough power to connect them’ so half the houses are going to have to have gas boilers instead – it’s so frustrating. 

Great Britain’s power stations together generate 75 gigawatts of electricity, and the mainland is expected to need about twice as much by 2050 as people switch to ­electric vehicles and heat pumps.” The Guardian

Dissatisfaction with Britain's electric vehicle charging network is running at about 70% of EV drivers, citing a lack of public charging stations and unreliability. The government is targeting 300,000 charging stations by 2030, with only 53,677 available at the start of 2024 (an increase of 45% in 12 months) and the majority to be provided by private investors.

Meanwhile, Britain's water problems flow partly from the risk of drought and party from its combined sewage system which takes rainwater through the same pipes as the grey water from sinks and baths, as well as the raw sewage from toilets. Any excess of rainwater simply overloads the sewerage system of pipes that normally takes sewage to local treatment works, and the overflow goes directly into the waterways... 

Crisis? What Crisis?

Who's to blame for Britain's sagging infrastructure involves lots of finger-pointing and misinformation. 

When challenged over delays to connect new systems to the electricity grid, the National Grid's system operator complains that the queue of projects waiting to connect would add 800 gigawatts of electricity - "more than more than four times as much as the country would ever need." There are even delays in the time it takes to get an estimate of when a project will be connected, as well as 'zombie projects' that were approved but have been abandoned due to connection waiting times of 5 to 15 years.

Yet this hides the fact that more renewable projects/systems will be necessary to reduce Britain's reliance on fossil fuels, since energy systems that generate electricity from solar and wind don't all contribute to the grid at the same time, unlike a gas-fired or coal-fired power station where the energy source to create the electricity is under human control. 

As for water - well, none of England’s rivers is classified as being in good ecological health and Britain is already failing to produce enough fresh water to meet its needs year round. The country's 'combined sewage system' should be replaced by separate systems for rainwater and sewage, yet modernisation efforts have merely doubled-down on the combined system.

UK Government Distracted by Culture Wars

Britain's energy sector is self-evidently poorly prepared for the future. Here is a good description of the alphabet soup of bodies involved and the problem of every additional significant energy system creating the need for some change in part of the network. Here's a good overview of the challenges facing sewerage reform and here is a discussion of drought risk.

There is undoubtedly a need for reforms and there are plenty that have been announced with targets of, say, 2035 and 2050, but where are the plans that had a target of, say, 2023? And if we had them, why weren't they being updated?

It's hardly surprising that a country with 5 prime ministers in 8 years and as many Cabinet reshuffles has failed to find the time or dedication required to overhaul the energy sector and water industry. Too much control over the maintenance and renewal of Britain's creaking infrastructure has been left to private interests. Had the income from customer bills gone into public coffers instead of draining into investors' pockets, it might have been a different story - or at least the money might have been used to bolster the many other public services that are in such a dire state. 

Choices, Choices

All this brings us back to scarcity and the need to make careful choices over how we develop, protect and deploy our energy and water resources. This is largely a question of politics and intervention by a responsible government to balance out the many competing interests. Areas in which Brexit Britain has been - and continues to be - very poorly served. 

It must be doubted that a new government will be able to make much progress after 15 years of under-investment and poor decision-making by its predecessors.

In these circumstances, it seems unwise to devote enormous amounts of power and water to mine bitcoin for speculative purposes or to support generative AI systems that are either used merely for entertainment or to render people jobless (if the hype is to be believed). 

Certainly cash-strapped consumers should think about their utility bills and water shortages before speculating in bitcoin, playing online games or using open AI systems for entertainment or to do things that they could do for themselves. 

 

Defending Humanity Against The Techno-Optimists

I've been involved in tech since the mid-90s, have experienced the rise and burst of many 'bubbles', and have been writing about SiliCon Valley's war on the human race since 2014. But the latest battles involving crypto and AI are proving to be especially dangerous. A cult of 'techno-optimism' has arisen, with a 'manifesto' asserting the dominance of their own self-interest, backed by a well-funded 'political action committee' making targeted political donations. Laws and lawsuits are pending, but humanity has to play a lot harder on defence... To chart a safe route, we must prioritize the public interest, and align technology with widely shared human values rather than the self-interest of a few tech enthusiasts, no matter how wealthy they are.

As Michael Lewis illustrated in The New New Thing, SiliCon Valley has always had its share of people eager to get rich flogging a 'minimum viable product' that leaves awkward 'externalities' for others to deal with. Twenty five years on, we are still wrestling with disinformation and other harmful content that flows from social media platforms, for example, never mind the 'dark web'.

Regardless of the potential downsides, the 'Techno-optimist manifesto' seeks to elevate and enshrine the get-rich-quick-at-others'-expense approach in a set of beliefs or 'creed' with technology as a 'god':

"Technology is the glory of human ambition and achievement, the spearhead of progress, and the realization of our potential." a16z

The techno-optimist creed commands followers to view the world only in terms of individual self-interest, to a point verging on malignant narcissism:

"We believe markets do not require people to be perfect, or even well intentioned – which is good, because, have you met people? Adam Smith: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.” a16z

In other words, techno-optimists aren't interested in humanity, good intentions or benevolence. They are only self-interested and believe that you and everyone else is, too. It's you against them, and them against you. In this way, the techno-optimists absolve themselves of any responsibility to care about other humans, because other humans are merely self-interested and technology is the pinnacle of everyone's self-interest. 

The cult only needs to focus on building new tech. 

The only remaining question relating to other humans is whether your self-interest is aligned with the techno-optimist's chosen technology. If not, you lose - as we'll see when it comes to their use of your cryptoassets or your copyright work or personal data where it is gathered among the training data they need to develop AI systems...

You might well ask if there are any constraints at all on the techno-optimists' ambition, and I would suggest only money, tech resources and the competing demands of other techno-optimists.

They claim not to be against regulation, so long as it doesn't throttle their unrestrained ambition or 'kill' their pet technology. To safeguard their self-interest, the techno-optimists are actively funding politicians who are aligned with their self-interest and support their technology, and attacking those who are not... with a dose of nationalism for good measure:

“If a candidate supports an optimistic technology-enabled future, we are for them. If they want to choke off important technologies, we are against them,” wrote Ben Horowitz, one of [a16z's] founders, in a Dec. 14 post, adding: “Every penny we donate will go to support like-minded candidates and oppose candidates who aim to kill America’s advanced technological future.” Cointelegraph

"Fairshake, a political action committee [PAC] supported by Coinbase and a16z, has a $73 million war chest to oppose anti-crypto candidates and support those in favor of digital assets... Fairshake describes itself as supporting candidates “committed to securing the United States as the home to innovators building the next generation of the internet.” Cointelegraph

Nationalistic claims are typical of such libertarian causes (Trump's "Make America Great Again") and invite unfortunate comparisons with European politics of the 1930s, as George Orwell pointed out in his Notes on Nationalism in 1945:

Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism... two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power... 

A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. 

But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also — since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself — unshakeably certain of being in the right..."

Yet in 2014, Google's CEO at the time, Eric Schmidt, 'warned' us that humans can only avoid the much vaunted Singularity - where computers out-compete humans to the point of extinction - by finding things that 'only humans can do and are really good at'. Ironically, by dedicating themselves utterly to the god of technology, the techno-optimist is actually asserting the 'self-interest' of machines! 

Of course, technology is not inherently good or bad. That depends on their human creators, deployers and users. There's a long list of problems in the techno-optimist manifesto which they claim technology itself has 'solved' but self-evidently has not, either because the technology was useless without human involvement or the problems persist.

And what of their latest creatures: crypto and AI?

While 'blockchain' or distributed ledger technology does have some decent use-cases, the one that gets the techno-optimists most excited is using crypto-tokens as either a crypto-currency or some other form of tradeable crypto-asset. They insist that the technology is so distinct that it must not be subject to existing securities laws. Yet they use the terminology of existing regulated markets to describe roles in the crypto markets that are really only corruptions of their 'real world' counterparts. Markets for cryptocurrencies and cryptoassets are riddled with examples of fraud and market manipulation that were long ago prohibited in the regulated markets. A supposedly distributed means of exchange without human intervention is actually heavily facilitated by human-directed intermediaries, some of which claim to operate like their real world equivalents that safeguard their customers' funds, while actually doing the opposite. The shining example of all these problems, and the numerous conflicts with the participating techno-optimists' self-interest, is the FTX scandal. And there are many others.

As for AI, again there are decent systems and use-cases, but the development of some AI systems relies on huge sets of 'training data' that would be prohibitively expensive to come by, were they not simply 'scraped' from the internet, regardless of copyright or privacy concerns: the technological equivalent of toxic waste. The creators of several of these 'open' AI systems defend their activity on techno-optimist grounds. Midjourney founder David Holz has admitted that his company did not receive consent for the hundreds of millions of images used to train its AI image generator, outraging photographers and artists; and OpenAI blithely explained in its submission to a UK House of Lords committee:

“Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression – including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents – it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials.”

So, there we were in 2014 being warned to be creative, but it turns out that the techno-optimists believe that your self-interest and the rights that protect your work can simply be overridden by their 'divine' self-interest. 

Needless to say, many humans are not taking this lying down (even if some of their governments and institutions are).

In January 2023, illustrators sued Midjourney Inc, DeviantArt Inc (DreamUp), and Stability A.I. Ltd (Stable Diffusion), claiming these text-to-image AI systems are “21st-century collage tools that violate the rights of millions of artists.”  A spreadsheet submitted as evidence allegedly lists thousands of artists whose images the startup's AI picture generator "can successfully mimic or imitate." 

The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copying and using millions of its copyright works seeking to free-ride on its investment in its journalism by using it to build 'substitutive' products without permission or payment.  

Getty Images has also filed a claim that Stability AI ‘unlawfully’ scraped millions of images from its website. 

Numerous other lawsuits are pending; and legislative measures have either been passed (as in the EU and China) or regulators have been taking action under existing law (as the Federal Trade Commission has been doing in the US). 

Meanwhile, the right wing UK government has effectively sided with the techno-optimists by leaving it to 90 regulatory authorities to try to assess the impact of AI in their sectors, and even cancelled plans for guidance on AI copyright licensing that copyright owners had requested. 

As the Finance Innovation Lab (of which I’m a Senior Fellow) has pointed out, the AI governance debate is dominated by those most likely to profit from more AI - and the voices of those who may be most negatively impacted are being ignored. Government needs to bring industry, researchers and civil society together, and find ways to include the perspectives of the wider public. To chart a safe route forward, it is essential that we prioritize the public interest, and align technology with societal values rather than the self-interest of the techno-optimists. 

Commercially speaking, however, there's also the point that consumers tend to reward businesses that act as 'facilitators' (who solve our problems) rather than 'institutions' (who solve their own problems at our expense). Of course, businesses can start out in one category and end up in another... The techno-optimists' commitment to their own self-interest (if recognised by consumers) should place them immediately in the second category.

Financial Crisis: Death By A Thousand Cuts

Speaking 10 years after the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, Hank Paulson worried that, while banks were not over-leveraged, governments had no room to stimulate growth because they were already spending and borrowing record at record rates and interest rates couldn't go any lower. Another 5 years on, and the era of cheap money is over, inflation has rocketed and suddenly there's a crisis of confidence in banks, not governments. What the hell happened? Well, it's the same old problem: greed and stupidity are winning, but this time it's everywhere, all at once. 

The result is a broader crisis in confidence - or the lack of it. No matter where investors turn unexpected holes are appearing. A string of crypto collapses culminating in the discovery of a vast fraud in FTX and the ensuing crypto-contagion that bled into the banking system via Silvergate; the SEC finally calling time on numerous unregistered crypto-securities programmes, again stressing real world investors and funding providers; the Truss-Kwarteng 'mini-budget' producing unaffordable mortgages and declining property prices amid flat-lining business investment and other trade problems in Brexit Britain, now the basket-case of the G7; Russia's invasion of Ukraine driving energy price explosion and rampant inflation, to which central banks have responded with rapid interest rate rises that in turn cut the market value of long term bonds held by banks with needy depositors, like SVB, First Republic and other lesser US banks that Trump exempted from proper scrutiny. And then there's the perennial doom-spiral that is Credit Suisse. 

Where will it end?

Who knows. Buckle up and try to enjoy the ride.

Why Is Fishy Rishi Flogging The Crypto Dream?

"We're looking at politician who has a lot more direct exposure to the Crypto industry than most world leaders".  Yahoo! finance

While he was Chancellor, Rishi Sunak - the wealthy hedge-fund guy who sold us Boris Johnson - met crypto-asset manager Bitwise and Solana Labs, and leading tech/crypto venture firms Sequoia and Andreessen Horowitz, among others. Then he committed the UK to be a "global hub for cryptoasset technology" and commissioned the Royal Mint to "issue a non-fungible token (NFT) by the end of the year “as an emblem of the forward-looking approach the UK is determined to take.” [my emphasis on the weasel words]." Of course, that NFT thing never happened. But Sunak did drive plans to regulate 'stablecoins' as a means of payment - in a way that gave him (as Chancellor) the ability to change the qualifying definition. 

To give you some insight into Sunak's Crypto meetings: before the collapse of his FTX house of cards, Sam Bankman-Fried was a "big supporter of Solana" which is itself no stranger to controversy; Sequoia was the leading venture firm backing FTX, with $150m, while Sequoia's own investment funds received $200m via FTX's trading arm, Alameda Research; and Andreessen Horowitz led a $314m 'private token sale' by Solana. Meanwhile, Bitwise also has a stake in Solana and, among many boosterish claims, Bitwise CIO says the reason why the price of Ether is drifting sideways is that it's being suppressed by general Crypto industry bad news rather than, say, the fact that Ethereum mining is no longer profitable.

Like the Tory Party (and Sunak's government), the Crypto currency world (as opposed to many plausible but mundane scenarios for deploying distributed ledger tech generally) lacks substance and is rancid with infuriating boosterism. So it may simply be that Rishi feels at home in both camps. 

But based on his career progression and political record, my sense is that whatever Rishi's selling you'd be a damn fool to buy... 

Before You Invest, Please Realise That 'Web 3' Is Not The Same As 'Web 3.0'

Tech hypsters are colliding in cyperspace over rival claims to being the latest version of 'the Internet'. And the media aren't helping by failing to spot critical distinctions, as in CNN's recent mistake in interviewing a Web 3/'blockchain expert' about the Web 3.0 data privacy business started by Tim Berners-Lee (who has already warned us to ignore Web 3).

Perhaps the confusion stems from that fact that 'decentralisation' is a common theme for both: 

• the "Web 3" world of distributed ledger technology, blockchains, crypto-tokens, cryptocurrencies, cryptoassets and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), in which the community of more zealous participants are referred to as "Crypto"; and

• the evolution of the World Wide Web from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 to "Web 3.0" under the W3C banner - the space on the Internet (a network of networks, defined by the TPC/IP standards) in which the items of interest ("resources"), are identified by global Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI), the first three specifications of which were URLs, HTTP, and HTML.

While the Ethereum blockchain co-founder Gavin Wood suggests he "coined" the term Web 3.0 in 2014, it was certainly in use before then, as even my own post from January 2013 demonstrates - and I definitely didn't coin it. In fact, the Wikipedia entry for 'semantic web' cites a New York Times quote from 2006 that suggests 'Web 3.0' began being used in connection with linking data resources somewhat earlier than that:

People keep asking what Web 3.0 is. I think maybe when you've got an overlay of scalable vector graphics – everything rippling and folding and looking misty – on Web 2.0 and access to a semantic Web integrated across a huge space of data, you'll have access to an unbelievable data resource … 

— Tim Berners-Lee, 2006

The goal of the Web 3.0 community is to enable you to take control over 'your own data' (all data generated by your activity, not just personal data), enabling you to permit who can access and use it from wherever it is stored, by means of 'application programming interfaces' (APIs). This is encompassed in the concept of "linked data" and "linked datasets", often also referred to as "the semantic web". Midata is a related regulatory trend toward enabling consumers to control their own data, of which Open Banking and Open Finance generally are examples.

On the other hand, the goal of the Web 3/Crypto community is a broader, libertarian utopia that (according to Ethereum) guarantees 'personal sovereignty' in a 'permissionless', 'trustless' cryptographic environment with its own 'native' means of peer-to-peer payment. 

Unfortunately, in my view, the absence of trust in this would-be Crypto idyll is merely an externality that others are yet to satisfactorily address, as demonstrated by the collapse of many crypto exchanges and other 'decentralised finance' (DeFi) participants, the most recent being FTX group... 

All the more reason not to confuse 'crypto' Web 3 with 'semantic' Web 3.0!