From September 8 to 14, more than 100 programmers from around the world and around 60 public and private sector leaders representing 40 countries met in Bali, Indonesia, to delve deeper into the use of Blockchain. Hosted by Polkadot Blockchain Academy, the campus was attended by Ethereum co-founder Gavin Wood.
Indonesia took a fundamental step in terms of technological transformation by announcing that it will migrate all its public information management to Blockchain, in search of transparency, security and traceability.
From there, the first step was to create their own Blockchain, Mandala Chain, with which, for example, they will manage fish export data, one of the challenges of their economy.
Located in one of the main halls of the campus run by Polkadot Blockchain Academy (PBA) Mas Witjaksono is one of the richest entrepreneurs in the country. Its investments are divided between the fishing industry, infrastructure and waste treatment. “We realized that we needed Blockchain because it provided technological support to both the government and entrepreneurs, to be able to grow,” he explains.
In the same sense, Ery Punta, digital transformation advisor to the Government, details: "to protect our natural resources, we have a minimum size of lobster that we can export. And it turns out that we were receiving complaints from our clients in relation to the product we delivered. The lack of traceability to track origin was a problem, and that is why we started to build Mandala Chain."
Sitting to his right, Adrian Keet, one of those responsible for this development, adds "Another of the problems we are solving with our Blockchain is identity accreditation. Indonesia has 9,000 inhabited islands, it is a geographically decentralized country, with different traditions and religions, and we believe that it is best for citizens' personal data to be stored in a decentralized manner and used with prior consent."
Beyond offering online courses, the educational division of the non-profit Polkadot functions as a traveling university. This year Governance For New Leadership takes place at the Merusaka Nusa Dua Hotel, in Bali, after having passed through Lucerne, Switzerland.
In November, they will visit Argentina. “We believe it will be a fantastic opportunity for all of Latin America, where Blockchain adoption continues to grow,” says Marina Marchesotti, business manager at PBA.
Roaming responds, fundamentally, to the identification that both Marchesotti (Argentina) and Pauline Vorms (France, CEO of PBA) make about the demand for knowledge regarding Blockchain.
But, in addition, what is experienced at the lunches, the spontaneous coffee meetings, and the recreational activities that are proposed, is the sensation of living in a moment of imminence: the Web 3 philosophy is, definitely, a paradigm shift in terms of technology.
To a large extent, this perception is given by the certainty that Gavin Wood himself - co-founder of Ethereum, the most used Blockchain in the world; leader of the Web 3 Foundation; founder, of Polkadot, among other merits - will land in Bali.
However, by the time we can talk to him, there are debates floating in the air, nourished by the gaze of Indian, European, or Latin American programmers, who exchange opinions with investors, business analysts, or technology developers, such as the case of Edoe Cohen, an Israeli who works in Silicon Valley.
Cohen is in Indonesia for the imminent launch of his application Papaya, for healthy food delivery. Their tool was developed on Blockchain.
"Today, we have the most famous cases of applications or platforms for food delivery. Obviously they were built with the Web 2 model, that is, the key to these companies is that they have all the information in their hands, stored and managed on their servers. Hand in hand with the development of very good technological solutions, of course, they squeeze the rest of the parties. So the restaurants charge very little to work with them, and the same goes for the drivers, but no one can refuse to use their services because they have the most valuable thing, which It is that digital network of which they are the axis.”
Cohen focuses on a central aspect of the platform economy: "the way in which these companies create their power is with a lot of initial investment by funds that are betting on the long term. They work extraordinarily on marketing, and after years of losses, they begin to become profitable. At that moment, they have no choice but to suffocate the rest of the parties to recover everything that was invested at the beginning. Faced with this, we decided that, if the value is in the network that connects restaurants with drivers, with customers, then that value must stay in the community. That is the essence of Web 3. With a token, you can transact without the need for one party to dominate the others. This way, you pay less banking and financial fees, each party charges more, and the client has better service for less price.”
The challenge? Adoption, and a good proposal.
Cohen states with complete clarity that "for the public to adopt your solution, it has to be good, innovative, and really solve a problem. That is, there are no ethical issues linked to the massive use of technology, and we have to understand that. People are not going to use applications based on Blockchain because it is ethically better. Look at what happened with Tesla and electric cars: people do not buy Tesla because it is electric, but because it is an incredibly attractive vehicle. Then, the fact that it is electric, that is, less harmful to the environment environment, it is an added value.”
However, education is needed. Or at least that's how Gavin Wood understands it. What follows is a summary of the talk he had with Ámbito.
Recently the United States Congress approved a law that regulates stablecoins, known as the Genius Act. What is your analysis of this type of cryptocurrencies and the progressive acceptance by the traditional financial system?
First of all, I understand that part of the population chooses to transact with stablecoins trying to avoid certain frictions that the traditional financial system poses.
It is, in my opinion, a hybrid way of using Blockchain, because by avoiding friction you pay less commission, and the money goes from one place to another without so many intermediaries, but since stablecoins are tied to the value of a traditional currency (generally the US dollar) and regulated by Central Banks, these accounts can be blocked and even banks and financial entities can expropriate USDT or USDC.
So we're really talking about banks, at the end of the day. You're accessing a bank account, but with a cryptographic key instead of your handwritten signature or official ID.
In other words, while there is greater freedom using stablecoins, they are no more free than cash, which is truly in your pocket and only you have access to it.
-N of R: companies that offer conversion services use mechanisms such as KYC/AML, that is, they identify their clients and apply anti-laundering procedures.
Is there any difference with DAI, in the sense of stable cryptocurrencies not tied to fiat?
Well, if we talk about cryptocurrencies whose stability comes from pure cryptography, that is, algorithmic ones, then we have something different there, because those cannot be expropriated by any bank.
Anyway, I would like to emphasize that, for me, if someone wants to use USDT as an enhanced bank account, let's say, it is okay from a practical point of view. But is it contributing to a better world? No.
In that sense, our Web 3 philosophy is that individuals must become agents -N of R: Wood uses the term 'agency' and 'agent' which, in the British philosophical tradition, refers to what we usually understand as Subject, in the sense of the individual who makes decisions with freedom and responsibility.
In that sense, what is the role of governments, for example, in Latin America? Do you think there is anything we should expect from them in terms of technological evolution?
Well, let's say, to begin with, that politicians usually try to maintain the status quo. Because? Because if the people voted for them, they should keep them happy. That is why rulers tend to be, let's say, technophobic.
Technological innovation always involves a certain level of risk, so it does not seem that politicians are going to promote this type of initiative, although it is true that sometimes bureaucrats have technology advisors who, even in favor of maintaining power, advise them to use certain technologies.
What happens is that in general the technologies they advise are no less than 30 years old, because usually the technologists who advise governments are older people - he smiles and apologizes for the stereotype.
I had, in fact, experience about it. Years ago I worked in military technology briefly and met those in charge. They were good people, but they are not the ones who will make a real difference for the citizens.
Let's take an example: Google launched its solutions portfolio, say, 20 years ago. If the same product technology had been incorporated at that time, by the State, to simplify paying taxes, or obtaining a driver's license, or casting a vote, it would have been an extraordinary experience for society! But at that time, Google was new, so no one in the government was willing to innovate in that way.
The disconnection back then between the rulers and those who worked at Google creating solutions, I think is more or less the same that exists today between governments and Web 3 technologies, and my job consists of creating bridges that allow civil society and governments to adopt the technologies that I build, and that are perhaps seen as risky even when they have been sufficiently tested, to the point that in Polkadot there have been no attacks on the more than 6 billion dollars that are there in Dots.