Transcending Individualism & Collectivism - David Hoffman, Erik Voorhees and Kevin Owocki

How's everyone doing? So, if you've been paying attention to Eric and Kevin on Twitter, they occasionally get into a debate about public goods. Oh, and if you know, Eric is a big libertarian. And Kevin is really, uh, I guess I'd call him a collectivist. I'm not sure if that 's true or not.

However, although these two men have done a lot for this industry and are 99.999% alike, they tend to disagree on one thing, and that is the priority of individualism over collectivism. So, we're going to analyze this today on the Spankless podcast. And well, I'm going to start with you , Eric. Eric, why is individualism inherently good?

And how does crypto allow for individualism? Alright . Well, first I want to clarify something: I'm just an average-sized libertarian. I am 1.80 m tall, so there are others taller than me.

Um, okay. So, rephrase your question. Why is individualism good? And how does crypto allow individualism? Alright .

Well, actually, I'm a little disappointed that having to answer why individualism is good has to be an issue now. This used to be something understood by most people, at least in the United States, that all individuals are, you know, people with different preferences, and respecting individuals as such with their own preferences is a really good foundation for civilization. Um, somehow advocating for individualism has become an extreme position. And, uh, one of my favorite things about the crypto world is that it's starting to reclaim that and empower people as individuals. And Kevin, a very, very similar question for you.

Why is collectivism good, and how does crypto enable collectivism? Hello. Um, first of all, I want to say that ShapeShift is amazing. Thank you for everything you've done for this space, Eric. You're a legend.

Um, Kevin, a little closer to the microphone, please. I love ShapeShift. Thanks, Kevin. I'm sorry . I love Shapeshift.

That? So, your question was, why is collectivism good? Why is collectivism good and how does crypto enable it? Yes. So, um, collectivism is the idea that if we, well, a lot of the value we get from society comes from things like public goods and things that are part of the common good.

So things like clean air, like transportation networks, uh, all this space is possible thanks to the Internet, which was, uh possible thanks to the Internet, which was, uh , researched at ARPA through a government grant. So, the idea here is that public goods are good. 80% of the value we obtain in our lives comes from public goods. What good is a Lambo if the sky is on fire? Public goods are positive, but we tend to take them for granted until we no longer have them.

You do n't realize you don't have clean air until you breathe toxic air. You do n't realize that our digital infrastructure is underfunded until a black swan event occurs and there's a massive hack. Basically, the idea is that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants, and even the most successful entrepreneurs in this space have stood on the shoulders of giants. They were enabled by the contributions to humanity of previous generations, and we must recognize and respect that. Cryptocurrencies in Web3 allow greater combinations of strength and intelligence to come together to fund public goods.

And I think that's one of the great opportunities within space. Eric, do you think cryptocurrency fosters more individualism than collectivism? Is cryptocurrency an inherently individualistic technology? Yes, cryptocurrency is absolutely a fundamentally individualistic technology. It gives each individual sovereignty over their wealth, their finances, and now far beyond finances.

So absolutely yes. At the same time, I want to say, I agree with a lot of what Kevin says. Public goods are very important. I think what we disagree on is how they should be financed. Just because something is a public good doesn't mean you need to steal from your neighbor to finance it.

So, I think that's where we tend to disagree. But yes, cryptocurrency, you can see just from this event how individualistic it is, right? There are people here from all backgrounds, from all parts of the world. They see different things when they look through the prism of Ethereum. And I think that's a beautiful thing.

Eric, I want to present a counterpoint to that. So many people from so many different walks of life are all here. We are all individuals of many different nuances sharing the same environment in the same room. Isn't that collectivist? I suppose we need to define collectivism, right?

Uh define collectivism, right? Uh ... There is a definition of collectivism that I consider dangerous collectivism that I consider dangerous , in which groups of individuals are coerced into certain behaviors that they would not otherwise perform. I believe that the most dangerous forms of collectivism tend to turn into war, where hundreds, thousands, or millions of people are literally murdered under the banner of collectivism. Wars always occur under the banner of collectivism, under the banner of nationalism.

Um, I'm completely opposed to that. And then completely opposed to that. And then , for all that can be said about how the government funded the internet how the government funded the internet , yeah, okay, what other things has DARPA funded? Right? The same organization literally built the nuclear bomb and murdered 100,000 people in Japan.

So, personally, I want to find different ways to fund public goods other than forcibly giving money or taking it from my neighbor to give it to the most atrocious organizations on Earth. Kevin, do you want to answer that? Well , I'm happy to answer that, but I think that, in general, what we're trying to do is create a synthesis, not a back-and-forth conversation between Eric and me. I guess I'll just say that there are different ways in which collectivists and individualists define each other. So I think an individualist will define themselves on the basis of mutualism and cooperation, while a collectivist will focus on group goals.

What is best for the collective group and the interpersonal relationships within it. And I think an individualist would define a collectivist as someone willing to accept forced and coercive cooperation in order to achieve those group goals. And that is the main point of disagreement: whether or not coercion is an acceptable means to an end. And I guess, you know, the real question for me is: the real question for me is: would you accept a 20% tax on your income to create a 10,000 your income to create a 10,000 % better world? Kevin, we started this industry with Bitcoin, which I think is the most individualistic part of the whole industry, but I also think that this Web3 phenomenon and these community organizing phenomena are much more collectivist.

Do you see the Web3 side of the crypto revolution, in the phase we are in now, as the collectivist side that is emerging? Um, I think Ethereum...first of all , I don't know much about Bitcoin. Does that still exist? Rude.

Ethereum is a global, programmable, Turing-complete, transparent, and immutable substrate for human coordination. And when something is programmable, you can program your values ​​into your money. Therefore, I believe there will be different parts of the Web3 ecosystem that will program different values ​​in different monetary systems. And some will tend more towards multiplayer games and collectivist-type things . And some will tend more towards single-player games.

And I think that's great. The great thing about cryptocurrencies is that they are based on the principle that if you don't have your keys the principle that if you don't have your keys , you don't have your coins. And that allows you to have fundamental sovereignty over your bank account, which is incredible. And from there, from that base, we can build more non-coercive collectivist systems. So imagine a global, web-scale infrastructure for financing public goods that is non-coercive.

I believe that is the synthesis of Eric's set of values, mine, the synthesis of what is possible in this space. And I think we should refocus the conversation on how to create a synthesis of cypherpunk and solarpunk values ​​and bring that world to life together. So, in search of that synthesis, I think that both have articulated a pragmatic argument but from two different angles. Eric said that, uh, we, DARPA, created the internet, but we also created the nuclear bomb. Or, well, we can create something good from, uh, collectivist, uh, governmental efforts; But 10,000 evils follow.

But then Kevin says, what good is your Lambo if the sky is on fire? And therefore, we need some kind of government management, uh, or public goods funding to make sure that the sky isn't on fire. Both seem to be articulating pragmatism as, uh, their argument. pragmatism as, uh, their argument. How do you reconcile this?

Hey Eric, can we start with you? I think that when I look at the crypto world, I see people cooperating peacefully without any central coercion. And I think it's a beautiful example of the public goods that can actually be created without, uh, coercive financing. TRUE? There are so many things that the public uses in terms of infrastructure uses in terms of infrastructure , code, mathematics, language.

Uh, these are all public goods and they're not, you know, coercively funded. So I think a lot of people maybe don't fully realize how much spontaneous order actually exists around them that isn't coercively funded in the first place. Kevin, do you want to answer that same question? Do you want me to repeat it? Uh, sorry, could you repeat the question?

Yes. They both seem to be making, uh, pragmatic arguments, uh, to justify why perhaps they should prioritize collectivism over individualism. Um, Eric said that, well, although we can produce the internet through collectivism, we could actually cause wars as a result and the compensations, Eric, and, uh, what I think Eric is saying is that the compensations are simply not worth it . But then you say that, pragmatically, it is worth it for the government to take 20% of my money if they can make my roads pothole-free , my air very clean, and my water very clear. So, how do we reconcile this when both are presenting pragmatic arguments?

Yes. Well, I suppose it all depends on what you consider the greatest threat to human progress. Uh, you know, I think we're in this space to create the flourishing of a global citizenry that, no matter where you come from, who you are, or what your background is, can thrive economically, emotionally, and socially. So I think it really all depends on whether you consider the greatest threat to your progress to come from coercion by a collectivist actor, or whether you think that greatest threat comes from failures in global coordination, such as climate change, underfunded digital public goods , transport networks, clean air and water, herd immunity, and other such things. And then, depending on which of those things you consider the biggest threat to your progress, I think that's where it all comes down to.

Very good, guys. In your opinion, what is the best way to find a non-coercive way to finance public goods? How would you prefer it to be done? Eric, first we need to define what public goods should really be, public goods should really be, right? So, my main, one of my main problems with government in general is that it just gets bigger and bigger and they're always providing more things under the guise of public good.

So there are probably many things that both Kevin and I consider legitimate public goods that need funding, but that's a very small portion of where government money actually goes. Therefore, limiting the scope of what constitutes a real public good is, I believe, the first important thing. I think we all know that if all the government did was make sure the air was clean and build roads was clean and build roads , there wouldn't be a libertarian movement, right? That wouldn't exist libertarian movement, right? That wouldn't exist .

But that's not really where your money is going. That's just a tiny part of it. Okay, so yeah, I'll leave it at that. Yes. Um, yes.

So I mean, I think the question is, how do we coordinate to finance public goods? And one of the things I see with, well, the government definitely has a large administrative apparatus that is slow, bureaucratic, and much less efficient than much of the technology we see in this space and in technology in general. I believe one of the great opportunities I see is that with Ethereum we have a transparent, immutable, and programmable foundation for global coordination. Thus, nation-states cannot achieve global coordination in the face of global coordination failures global coordination failures . Nation-states do not have a transparent and incorruptible record that allows verification of what they are doing.

You have the opportunity for this administrative apparatus to grow and become truly excessive. So what become truly excessive. So what if we shifted the foundations of funding for some of these public goods to something more transparent and less susceptible to corruption? You know, a smart contract, once implemented, cannot be changed, even if the values ​​of the person who created it change. Whereas, with many of these governments, everything depends on the bureaucrat in charge of running the system.

That's why I truly believe we have a fundamentally better foundation for human coordination with blockchain-based systems, to create transparency and, therefore, accountability; This way we can build coordination systems without a large administrative apparatus. And perhaps that is the essence of where we are headed. I want to delve deeper into that part about where we are headed. Eric, how do you think the crypto industry plays a role in the long-term financing of public goods? We are still in a very early stage of cryptocurrencies, with many experiments underway.

Do you think this industry really has a role to play in making public goods funded, secure, and stable in the long term? I may be stuck in the past, but my generation of cryptocurrency enthusiasts remains focused on the original mission: to take money and finance out of the hands of the government. That 's a monumental undertaking and it's starting to work, but it will be a process that will last for decades. I love that there are now people in the crypto world with different missions and who use this technology in other ways. So that's great.

But when someone says, "How should crypto be used to fund public goods?" It's a very strange concept to me. Because it seems like a question that might be appropriate in the future. But today, we still have the Federal Reserve. Today, someone born in a certain country cannot send money to another simply because of their origin.

Today, everyone here and their fiat currencies are being devalued by 10% per year. And until we stop that cancer, um, I think it's almost pointless to start talking about public goods that also need funding in other ways. I think your answer was simply that money is a public good and that the government is ruining that public good for the rest of us by devaluing fiat currency. Is that it? Perhaps I'll take this cancer metaphor a little further.

If you're dying of cancer, you don't want to talk about, like, what clothes you should be wearing right now , right? That might be important if you weren't dying of cancer, but when you're dying of cancer, you stop the cancer. I believe fiat currency is a cancer for the world. And once that's resolved, I'll be the first to start analyzing other important problems that humanity must address. Is money the ultimate public good?

Uh no, money is not a public good . Uh, money is a private good. It should be a private good. Each person's money belongs to themselves. But we all use the same money.

And so yes, I have my money that is in, that I own, but I only own that money because everyone else also owns that money, because it is a global utility system. Don't you consider that , you know, the establishment of gold, for example, is a system that exists worldwide that we are all collectively using as a utility to transfer value? And then, when you say that we are devaluing money, I hear that we are ruining a public good. Yes. Gold was not established.

Gold emerged through the trade of goods, or by individual private parties based on their individual self-interest. Correct. So this is really an example of something that is useful, but is purely private. It does not require government funding. It does not require that it be, like, it is not a public good.

It is just an individual commodity that individuals use as and when they see fit. I think something like air is a much more difficult challenge because it is shared by everyone. Uh, it's very difficult, like, to limit it and, uh, to contain it. So there are many important questions about, like, how to keep the air clean. And I think that's a fair point to discuss.

Kevin, I want to return to the question of how cryptocurrencies can help fund public goods in the long term. And you have a book right there called Greenpi...uh, which talks about regenerative cryptoeconomics. Regenerative crypto economy. Is that just another name for helping to fund public goods?

Yes, I mean, I think the answer is yes. And thank you for promoting this book about how cryptocurrencies can regenerate the world cryptocurrencies can regenerate the world , which I wrote so I wouldn't have to . Uh, the reason the book is called Greenpilled and doesn't...Uh, doesn't have the words public good in the name is because you need an economics class to understand what public goods are. But everyone understands viscerally what regenerative systems are .

Systems that recover over time and are antifragile when exposed to stress are regenerative. And public goods are a subset of that. But I don't want to get too tech-savvy and get into economics and definitions with people when I'm trying to explain why cryptocurrencies are good for the world, because that's a good way to lose the audience. So that's why we talk about Greenpilled and regenerative cryptoeconomics instead of public goods in the book. And the answer to your question is that the atomic unit of how cryptocurrencies can regenerate the world is an impact DAO.

An impact DAO is defined simply as something that has a positive externality for the world. Basically, that positive externality can be financial, such as Gitcoin Grants creating funds for open source software. We have funded $53 million in open source so far. Thanks, Eric. In a non- coercive manner.

Um, and uh, that's an example of an impactful DAO. Uh, another example of an impact DAO is, uh, I think Klima is a great example of an impact DAO that is tokenizing carbon credits to allow us to buy carbon credits using Ethereum and thus pay for the carbon impact not only of the Ethereum ecosystem, but eventually of the whole world, uh, using, using, uh, Ethereum technology. And I think another great example is Proof of Humanity; The identity and ability to transact as a human, uh, is regenerative for the world. There are people in Argentina who, because they have resistance to Sybil attacks in Proof of Humanity, are living on a universal basic income. Excellent!

That is the world we want to create. So, impact is the atomic unit of how we build a regenerative crypto-economic system. Impactful DAOs have positive externalities and can act on many different vectors. Financial, material, social, intellectual. A shout-out to Gregory Landua intellectual.

A shout-out to Gregory Landua , who's around here and talks about eight different forms of capital, of which financial capital is just one . And by stacking these impact markers on top of each other and choosing to invest our financial and intellectual resources in them, we build a non-coercive, regenerative infrastructure for the world. And I really hope to see this community at ETH Denver and beyond investing in creating positive externalities with the projects you all are building, because the book is called How Cryptography Could Regenerate the World. And to take us to a world where cryptography regenerates the world, we all have to choose it. And that means all of you.

Yes. I love everything you just said, Kevin, because none of it is coercive. I love that. And I love that cryptographic technology has allowed these kinds of things to flourish and that all this creative energy is being directed towards these problems with technology that didn't exist a decade ago. Yes.

Hell yes! Kevin, when you talk about regenerative crypto-economy , I imagine in my head a mesh network of many, many systems that have positive externalities in the world. And you listed a bunch of different categories where, if we can create impactful DAOs in all of these categories, they can grow to fill the void in the world around us . Suddenly, the commitment to these things begins to produce some kind of baseline level of funding for the world around us. As this mesh network of DAOs grows and matures, does that eliminate some of the responsibilities that governments currently have?

Um, we haven't reached that point yet, and I don't really speak the language of bureaucrats, so I really don't know. I'm sorry so I really don't know. I'm sorry . Very good, guys. I want to wrap this up and change the subject to something a little more current, which is ETH Denver.

You two are ETH Denver veterans You two are ETH Denver veterans . Eric, what does ETH Denver mean to you? Um, well, I'm from Colorado and, I mean, for me it's been a lot of fun to see this branch of cryptography that is Ethereum. It has become an important branch, like returning to my hometown and where I 'm from, and having all of you visit this beautiful state is simply very special to me. Um, you know, like in the old days when I used to go to Bitcoin conferences, they were always in other far-off places and that's great.

But seeing everything come full circle and return to Colorado is simply something special for me because I'm from here. Kevin, same question. What does ETH Denver mean to you? Uh, ETH Denver is a meeting point for all of us to come together, connect with our collective possibilities, build the future, and we're going to put Colorado on the map as the place to move to when you want to build the future. Miami doesn't even come close to Colorado, David.

Very good. I want to thank my two guests, Eric and Kevin. I appreciate them both. You are heroes, my personal heroes . And every time you speak, I always listen.

So it's an honor to be able to ask them questions directly, face to face. Health. Thank you, David. Health. Thank you so much.

Thanks, Kevin.