Je soutiens Marie Ekeland qui a accepté en devenant présidente du Conseil National du Numérique de mener les réflexions sur les enjeux du numérique et de relever le défi du « penser demain ». Elle fait ceci en plus des responsabilités de présidente de son fonds d’investissement.
Je soutiens Marie Ekeland parce qu’on lui demande de faire quelque chose d’impossible à mes yeux. Etre à la fois la représentante d’un écosystème et l’animatrice d’un think tank indépendant.
Le gouvernement veut faire un conseil qui représente la France dans sa pleine et grande diversité. Le gouvernement veut un conseil du numérique qui représente la France, pas le numérique. Soit. Mais le gouvernement n’en a pas la légitimité. Son rôle est d’écouter pas de ‘normer’ sa vision de la diversité.
Le débat restera sans fin et stérile parce que personne n’est légitime pour « normer » la diversité. Il semblerait que le débat soit maintenant autour de la bonne et mauvaise diversité. A ce stade je rejoins Gilles Babinet qui fait le « pari de l’intelligence » et qui croit que toutes les idées sont combattables. Même si, Gilles, ceci ne se fait pas forcément dans toutes les enceintes.
En tous les cas, la bien pensance gouvernementale pourrait maintenant agir très profondément en définissant ce qui est acceptable en terme de diversité d’idées et ce qui ne l’est pas.
Dont acte. Mais dans ce cas, merci de na pas nous venter l’indépendance de l’institution.! Il s’agit d’un think tank du gouvernement. Un secrétariat bis du numérique où se retrouve la majorité du président pour penser le futur. Un futur en marche.
Un secrétariat bis du numérique sans administration.
Si c’est le cas, l’institution n’est plus un conseil indépendant mais une annexe de l’exécutif et alors plein de questions se sont posent:
– 2 représentants du même groupe bancaires 0 pour les autres? Il semblerait qu’un groupe bancaire soit plus introduit que les autres. Ou alors simple hasard?
– Personne du logiciel libre ? Empêcheur de tourner en rond?
– Personne des organisations professionnelles?
Le fonctionnement en écosystème est nécessaire et constitue la base du monde des affaires, mais le mélange public – privée ne fait pas bon ménage quand on cherche une réelle indépendance de vue.
En attendant il existe un grand nombre d’associations numérique ( plus de 20 en France) qui jouent déjà ce rôle de représentation de la société civile dans sa grande diversité. Pourquoi ne sont elle pas au cœur de cette gouvernance? Pourquoi toujours réinventer ce qui existe?
J’avais proposé au cours des discussions sur la réforme du CNNum, sans avoir été entendu, de créer des collèges provenant des associations du numérique avec des membres tirés au sort et renouvelés fréquemment pour pouvoir travailler avec le gouvernement. Ceci n’a pas été entendu, il a été remplacé par le choix jupéterien! Beaucoup plus en vogue.
Je crois que Marie Ekeland et le Ministre ont toutes les cartes en main pour pouvoir donner la légitimité au conseil national du numérique. Ils vont réussir cet exercice paradoxal.
Le système de l’argent frelaté. Le système selon lequel ceux qui ont de l’argent de côté ou veulent en mettre de côté se font étriller par les politiques monétaires, les dévaluations compétitives, les manipulations de taux, la fiscalité, les quantitative easings, les créations monétaires des banquiers centraux.
Les banquiers centraux ont réussi à plus ou moins dompter l’or à coup de barrières, difficultés, taxations, etc. Ils en ont toujours dans leurs coffres (et de plus en plus, d’ailleurs, depuis la crise).
I have been very active to promote a self regulation environment for ICOs and ITOs in Europe in order to have a better ecosystem trough a regular dialog with the regulator and legislative bodies.
Like we have said earlier, we strongly believe that we need a European ICO/ITO manifesto, to create best practices in this exciting new innovation enabling projects to federate resources in a regulator-free environment, ie in the existing legal frameworks, so entrepreneurs wont be intimated or stifled in developing innovation in Europe.
Ecosystem actors assisting projects and companies in the issuance of new tokens should take the lead in writing and educating ICO/ITO market, with a ‘Best Practices Charter.’
This manifesto or Charter seeks to establish and build consensus the best practices for the launch of ICO/ITO’s : Questions addressed are do we need a KYC ? What kind of KYC? What type of token? Token structuration and uses? Defining the purpose of the ICO? What kind of due diligence must be made before the ICO/ITO? What minimum structure of whitepaper and prospectus? What information is provided in these ICO supporting documents
Nous aurons cependant un fil rouge visant à inscrire les évolutions et soubresauts de la blockchain dans une perspective lui redonnant du sens : et si on regardait la blockchain comme la façon ultime de redonner le pouvoir aux individus, et ce dans les multiples facettes de leurs parcours de vie ? Avec un regard prospectif et le décryptage des nouvelles tendances avec notre partenaire Sindup qui propose son baromètre de la blockchain, nous nous focaliserons sur des enjeux tels que la co-création, l’intelligence collective, la collaboration, la réinvention des échanges économiques, sociaux et culturels, la solidarité, la générosité.
Paris Innovation Review is an online-only magazine published in English and French. With authors from both business and academic expertize, it is PSL’s magazine for decision-makers around the world Paris Innovation Review’s articles reflect independent thinking and rigorous analysis. We aim to debate major issues in a world undergoing a wave of innovations of all kind (social, technological, managerial).
Paris Innovation Review is the heart of an international network involving two regional editions (China, Africa-Middle East) and others coming, as well as partnerships with Knowledge@Wharton, McKinsey Quarterly, Telos-eu and L’Ecole de Paris du Management . Paris Innovation Review is free whether you subscribe or not. Subscribers receive a weekly email newsletter as well as special articles.
This article was first published at : http://parisinnovationreview.com/articles-en/blockchain-revolution-trust and in french at http://parisinnovationreview.com/article/blockchain-revolution-confiance
As the underlying technology used in Bitcoin, blockchain is shaking up our centralized institutions, which held until now a monopoly on the creation of SELRES_2a64f2c0-98ef-4b2f-858d-b8b71fdb8e2btrustSELRES_2a64f2c0-98ef-4b2f-858d-b8b71fdb8e2b. By allowing to build trust without a central authority, this ground-breaking technology will contribute to meeting the challenges of the great transitions of the 21st century but also change the organization of our societies, argues Philippe Rodriguez in his book “La révolution blockchain” (The Blockchain Revolution). The Initial Offering Corner (ICO) phenomenon is a striking example of the impact of blockchain on a business sector: the process of capital raising may well be revolutionized.
The blockchain revolution shakes the established order whereby institutions played the main role in disseminating trust in society. For the first time since the birth of institutions approximately 10,000 years ago, a technology allows to establish a system of trust that does not rely on a central authority but on all the members of the community that use it. Because we have been raised and educated in a centralized world, we feel insecure about decentralized systems. Nevertheless, it is very powerful operating mode. Given the current mistrust towards institutions, decentralized systems have a great opportunity to create a new world in which it is possible to think differently and where authority is not necessarily represented by a centralized human organization but by a combination algorithms/community. There will be great resistance, maybe even chaos, when shifting from one system to the other.
Paris Innovation Review — What makes the blockchain technology a revolution?
Philippe Rodriguez — The blockchain revolution shakes the established order in which institutions played the main role in disseminating trust in society. We know that it is not possible to have strong social interactions for human groups of over 150 persons. This is known as Dunbar’s number and institutions emerged approximately 10,000 years ago in order to break this limit. With the publishing of the article on Bitcoin signed by Satoshi Nakamoto in December 2008, a new paradigm was proposed to create trust. This paper demonstrates that it is possible to build a peer-to-peer money system without any central authority, fully working and in which property can be guaranteed i.e. where the same property cannot be owned by two people at a time. This is a revolution insofar as for the first time since the birth of institutions, a technology creates a system of trust that does not rely on a central authority but instead, on all the members of its community of users. At the origin of blockchain, there is Bitcoin. And at the origin of Bitcoin, there is a group of researchers who wanted to reverse the old paradigm whereby the creation of trust requires a central authority. Interestingly, the creation of blockchain is not based on a stroke of genius but on a very elegant combination of pre-existing technologies such as hashing, timestamping, etc. The founding paper is very short: the solution was found by combining components of crypto, open source and mathematics.
Can we say that blockchain technology has now freed itself from Bitcoin?
If you ask someone to explain how blockchain technology works, they will probably respond by explaining how Bitcoin works. The word blockchain doesn’t appear in the 2008 Bitcoin paper in which it is described. The only expression that appears is “chain of blocks.” The semantic shift took place in 2015. It was operated by those who were interested in blockchain technology but not in Bitcoin, which had gained a wide reputation. “Bitcoin is bad, blockchain is good”, would they say. In fact, this statement is quite hypocritical: blockchain only works because of Bitcoin. That is, if the Bitcoin blockchain is as powerful in terms of security, it is because Bitcoin supports it. Indeed, for the system to be very secure, it must be open and unpermissioned i.e. anyone can bring in computing power to secure the network. To do this, you have to pay those who bring power. This implies a unit of account and therefore, a cryptocurrency. Without that, you get closed systems that have security problems because, on the long run, there are significant risks that they will be centralized.
What is your view on private blockchains?
In technological terms, they are called DLT (Distributed Ledger Technology) or permissioned blockchains: systems that use an open technology to do something private. A parallel can be drawn with the Internet and the intranet. In itself, an intranet is neither good nor bad. It just responds to the need for a closed network in which participants are known. But the intranet is a sub-family of something larger, which is the Internet, and innovations come from the Internet, not the intranet. Likewise, closed blockchains are useful to certain communities and are not in opposition to open, unpermissioned blockchains which allow everyone to bring in computing power and have a truly decentralized system.
In your book, you are convinced that the blockchain technology can help meet the challenges of the great transitions of the 21st century, whether demographic, ecological, numerical, monetary or even democratic. How exactly?
Let’s take the example of the energy transition, an absolutely fascinating one. We are currently seeing the development of free-floating mobile entities, such as electric scooters in open access in cities, powered by what smart grids. Energy networks will increasingly look like the Internet. More and more people are able to produce energy and have no interest in selling their electricity to a central company. All of this requires units of account, trust and completely decentralized organizations, all of which are possible thanks to blockchain technology. Another example of democratic transition is that electronic voting is difficult to implement because it is centralized. The only way to make it work is to entrust it not to a single centralized organization but to an open source algorithm, auditable and within a decentralized system.
This is the paradox: we intuitively think that institutions are the guarantors of trust and at the same time, we distrust them.
But precisely, a decentralized technology is attacking a still very centralized world…
That is why I am talking about a revolution and not an evolution. We have been raised and educated in a centralized world and therefore, feel insecure about decentralized systems. Nevertheless, it is very powerful operating mode. Take Wikipedia, a wonderful example of decentralized organization. Thirty people work there full time and it is one of the ten most visited websites in the world. It could be compared today to a common good of mankind. Wikipedia, with its decentralized system, realized something that had never been achieved using a centralized system. Before, encyclopedias were hard enough to disseminate and almost impossible to publish in many languages and countries. When Wikipedia started, most analysts thought its chances were slim. This example shows that our culture is evolving, even if it remains totally unintuitive for us because we learned at school that we live in a society of trust, primarily thanks to our institutions. But given the distrust towards institutions today, the system seems ripe for change. This is the paradox: we intuitively think that institutions are the guarantors of trust and at the same time, we distrust them. I am speaking of institutions in the broad sense: political institutions, banks, the euro, the European Central Bank, the EU… Given the current mistrust towards institutions, decentralized systems have a great opportunity to create a new world in which one can think differently, where authority is not necessarily represented by a centralized human organization but by a combination algorithms/community. There will be great resistance, maybe even chaos, when shifting from one system to the other.
Let’s get back to Bitcoin. In your book, you stress the risk of an Asian oligopoly on the mining market. Where do you think this cryptocurrency is heading to?
I am quite confident about Bitcoin as it is supported by a very solid technology. Bitcoin provides a highly anticipated and acclaimed service, and also, following my societal analysis, one that is needed. There are some risks of centralization due to organizations that tend to regroup. But this risk was known from the start of Bitcoin and the community tends to self-regulate itself. There is a negative feedback mechanism: the more the system is centralized, the lower the price of Bitcoin. So it’s a lose-lose situation. China has a lesser impact today. It was the underlying electrical factor that explained in great part this centralization, since China offered the most interesting mining location, cost-wise. With the raising price of Bitcoin, this situation is changing and other geographical areas around the world are becoming interesting for mining.
Is there any way to replace the proof of work, that many criticize in terms of carbon footprint?
There are lots of ways to change the proof of work. In particular, by replacing it with a so-called proof of stake. Instead of bringing in computing power, we prove that we share enough of the common unit to be part of the transaction verification algorithm. The proof of stake also has defects of its own: it is less secure but this does not prevent more and more cryptocurrency blockchains from using it. Bitcoin, on the other hand, continues to be based on proof of work.
Bitcoin is divisible ad infinitum. A bitcoin unit can be divided into as many pieces as one wishes and tagged with a certain color to make tokens. In the chain, these tokens are recognizable and identifiable as “threads” of the original cent. Take the example of a group of neighbors that wishes to build a park. They create one million tokens and a smart contract whereby every time a person sends money, they receive tokens in exchange. It is possible to set any kind of rules, such as waiting to reach a certain amount of tokens before distributing them. It is like a crowdfunding system except that no organization deals with it, only software. Tokens will also be listed on a market where it is possible to buy bitcoins or Ethereum. It resembles a financial security but there is no guarantee of return as interest or dividends. It is rather a digital asset but which can also serve as basis for governance. To continue with the example of the park, the day when you have to decide of the color of the slides, you can have all those who have tokens vote, each with as many votes as the number of tokens they possess.
In the last six months, several companies have received up to 250 million euros just by selling their tokens. That’s a lot of money, especially for companies that only offered a Powerpoint presentation… This year, 2.2 billion euros were raised through this system, that is to say, as much as the overall investment in start-ups in France over the same period. The interest for ICOs has therefore deepened. Many companies think: why not me?
What are the challenges?
They are huge. First of all, there is the issue of regulation. Regulators around the world are starting to take an interest in ICOs. According to them, it is illegal to raise money and create securities outside the stock market. For its part, the blockchain community believes that if they want to create titles of Monopoly and sell them, it isn’t the concern of regulators.
Is this a valid argument for you?
No, because investors need some kind of protection. How can someone issue false information, sell 10 million euros in tokens, close the business and still keep the 10 million? I believe we need a mix of regulation and self-regulation. National markets regulation authorities will not be able to control everything because we are talking of a global system. If these tokens truly resemble stocks or other financial securities, the same rules should apply. As for the rest, the players of these organized communities need to self-regulate themselves, like with the Internet, by setting up a number of technological standards and rules of good behavior.
What is the potential of ICOs?
My deep conviction is that something very interesting is happening here that will probably revolutionize the access to capital. But the form it will take will certainly be very different from what is being developed today. The vision is right but its realization is somewhat chaotic, like everything that happens around blockchain technology and Bitcoin.
Engager la transformation numérique au niveau Européen en créant des petits groupes de travail en Europe, en voilà une bonne idée. Elles porteront le nom de digital squads ou brigade du numérique en français.
Le communiqué de presse rédigé à Tallin par les premiers conseils de chacun des pays ( Allemagne, Suède, France) explique le bienfondé de la démarche.
At the occasion of the Tallinn Digital Summit, five European organizations will gather to reflect about a joint initiative: the “European Digital Squads”. The objectives of the project are first, to produce policy scenarios and solutions for the digital future of Europe and second, to improve the dialogue between European institutions and digital ecosystems. This will be fulfilled by catalyzing the working capacities and the visions of expert bodies from four different countries, in a short period of time. The cooperation is open to other organizations willing to join the initiative later on.
Bien que l’OCDE travaille depuis longtemps sur ces sujets et fait un travail remarquable d’analyse, espérons que ces brigades soit tournées vers l’action, en conseillant des actions précises et avec une mise en place rapides et réalistes. Tout l’enjeu est là.
A blog discussing the macro forces shaping the global economy today and over the horizon. Popular topics include Globalization, Trade, Sustainability, Innovation, Technology, Healthcare and Supply Chain Logistics.