For those of you who are interested in crypto (and for those of you who aren't but are open-minded), Vitalik has just published this post talking about what in the Ethereum application ecosystem currently excites him. A lot of it is pretty technical, but the 5 overarching categories he talks about are: (1) money, (2) decentralized finance, (3) identity, (4) decentralized autonomous organizations, and (5) hybrid applications.

Money has always been considered the first and most important application of crypto. But there is no shortage of people who will tell you that it'll never work and that fiat currencies backed by a government will always be superior. Today I already think the answer is: it depends. So lately, I have been responding to this comment by asking: Would you rather own the Argentine Peso or would you rather own someting like ETH?

Here's how Vitalik talks about this same point:

When I first visited Argentina in December last year, one of the experiences I remember well was walking around on Christmas Day, when almost everything is closed, looking for a coffee shop. After passing by about five closed ones, we finally found one that was open. When we walked in, the owner recognized me, and immediately showed me that he has ETH and other crypto-assets on his Binance account. We ordered tea and snacks, and we asked if we could pay in ETH. The coffee shop owner obliged, and showed me the QR code for his Binance deposit address, to which I sent about $20 of ETH from my Status wallet on my phone.

This was far from the most meaningful use of cryptocurrency that is taking place in the country. Others are using it to save money, transfer money internationally, make payments for large and important transactions, and much more. But even still, the fact that I randomly found a coffee shop and it happened to accept cryptocurrency showed the sheer reach of adoption. Unlike wealthy countries like the United States, where financial transactions are easy to make and 8% inflation is considered extreme, in Argentina and many other countries around the world, links to global financial systems are more limited and extreme inflation is a reality every day. Cryptocurrency often steps in as a lifeline.

The other category that I find very interesting is that of identity. And it relates to a post that Fred Wilson also happened to share today where he talks about the importance of identity and the coming need for us to start cryptographically signing everything. In my mind, what this comes down to is proving things like who is who, who is doing what, and who owns what.

This may sound counterintuitive since crypto is often held up by the media as a way to obfuscate identity and conceal nefarious activities. But the thing is, as soon as you link a real human to a blockchain, you can now have identity and ownership records that are institution-independent and fully interoperable. One use case that immediately comes to mind is property deeds, which is of course already being done in some places.

For Vitalik's full post, click here.

Picking a name for someone or something can be a daunting task. I have never had to name a newborn baby (though I've witnessed lots of people go through that process). But I am often involved in the naming of new buildings. Sometimes that process involves sitting in a room with a list of possible names in front of you, and having to decide which one is optimal. I don't love this approach. Nowadays, I find it's better to have the name naturally emerge early on in the development process, well before there's an actual brand and identity for the project. You want it to accurately embody the vision for the project, the site's history and context, and you want to know that it has some durability over time. Or at least, that's the goal.

On a related note, the New Yorker recently published an interesting piece on why your name matters. In the middle of the 20th century, research suggested that our chosen names were hugely impactful to life outcomes, and that more typical names were better than unusual ones. The theory was something known as the implicit-egotism effect, which basically states that we like things, including names, that most resemble ourselves. We want familiar. Which to me, immediately suggests that this effect must depend on cultural context. What is considered "typical" obviously changes depending on where you are in the world.

Our thinking has advanced since then. More recently we have found that it's not the name itself that creates the better life outcomes. Because if you control for a child's background and upbringing, any sort of name effect seems to disappear. However, names do in fact signal who we are. They imply certain things. Many of us have heard about the studies that use resumes with different names to test how people respond. Names just aren't inherently deterministic. You probably aren't more likely to become a doctor simply because of your name.

For those of you who are interested in crypto (and for those of you who aren't but are open-minded), Vitalik has just published this post talking about what in the Ethereum application ecosystem currently excites him. A lot of it is pretty technical, but the 5 overarching categories he talks about are: (1) money, (2) decentralized finance, (3) identity, (4) decentralized autonomous organizations, and (5) hybrid applications.

Money has always been considered the first and most important application of crypto. But there is no shortage of people who will tell you that it'll never work and that fiat currencies backed by a government will always be superior. Today I already think the answer is: it depends. So lately, I have been responding to this comment by asking: Would you rather own the Argentine Peso or would you rather own someting like ETH?

Here's how Vitalik talks about this same point:

When I first visited Argentina in December last year, one of the experiences I remember well was walking around on Christmas Day, when almost everything is closed, looking for a coffee shop. After passing by about five closed ones, we finally found one that was open. When we walked in, the owner recognized me, and immediately showed me that he has ETH and other crypto-assets on his Binance account. We ordered tea and snacks, and we asked if we could pay in ETH. The coffee shop owner obliged, and showed me the QR code for his Binance deposit address, to which I sent about $20 of ETH from my Status wallet on my phone.

This was far from the most meaningful use of cryptocurrency that is taking place in the country. Others are using it to save money, transfer money internationally, make payments for large and important transactions, and much more. But even still, the fact that I randomly found a coffee shop and it happened to accept cryptocurrency showed the sheer reach of adoption. Unlike wealthy countries like the United States, where financial transactions are easy to make and 8% inflation is considered extreme, in Argentina and many other countries around the world, links to global financial systems are more limited and extreme inflation is a reality every day. Cryptocurrency often steps in as a lifeline.

The other category that I find very interesting is that of identity. And it relates to a post that Fred Wilson also happened to share today where he talks about the importance of identity and the coming need for us to start cryptographically signing everything. In my mind, what this comes down to is proving things like who is who, who is doing what, and who owns what.

This may sound counterintuitive since crypto is often held up by the media as a way to obfuscate identity and conceal nefarious activities. But the thing is, as soon as you link a real human to a blockchain, you can now have identity and ownership records that are institution-independent and fully interoperable. One use case that immediately comes to mind is property deeds, which is of course already being done in some places.

For Vitalik's full post, click here.

Picking a name for someone or something can be a daunting task. I have never had to name a newborn baby (though I've witnessed lots of people go through that process). But I am often involved in the naming of new buildings. Sometimes that process involves sitting in a room with a list of possible names in front of you, and having to decide which one is optimal. I don't love this approach. Nowadays, I find it's better to have the name naturally emerge early on in the development process, well before there's an actual brand and identity for the project. You want it to accurately embody the vision for the project, the site's history and context, and you want to know that it has some durability over time. Or at least, that's the goal.

On a related note, the New Yorker recently published an interesting piece on why your name matters. In the middle of the 20th century, research suggested that our chosen names were hugely impactful to life outcomes, and that more typical names were better than unusual ones. The theory was something known as the implicit-egotism effect, which basically states that we like things, including names, that most resemble ourselves. We want familiar. Which to me, immediately suggests that this effect must depend on cultural context. What is considered "typical" obviously changes depending on where you are in the world.

Our thinking has advanced since then. More recently we have found that it's not the name itself that creates the better life outcomes. Because if you control for a child's background and upbringing, any sort of name effect seems to disappear. However, names do in fact signal who we are. They imply certain things. Many of us have heard about the studies that use resumes with different names to test how people respond. Names just aren't inherently deterministic. You probably aren't more likely to become a doctor simply because of your name.