Recently I was invited to moderate the “Climate Hack #5” event by Markus Sudhoff‘s “Climate Founders” startup incubator program.
Category Archives: speaking
Keynote: DECENTRALISED EVERYTHING (is Blockchain and Crypto eating the world?)
Excited to be doing keynotes again at real on-premise events despite the ongoing global pandemic!
Today I’m in Unter den Linden 1 at Bertelsmann Berlin, speaking about Blockchain, Crypto and Web3 at the Bertelsmann Tech & Data Week 2021. Humbled and honored to be on the same roster of keynote speakers as the excellent Hannah Fry (read her books, check out her socmed)!
It’s a company internal event, so I won’t be able to share the whole nine yards.
On a personal note, I suspect having travelled straight from the clinic where I’d just witnessed our second child being born and not having slept for over 24 hours to deliver the keynote live on stage I might have come off a little disheveled. ;) Zero regrets, though.
Here’s a teaser:
Web 1 – Remember? (1990s – ca.2005)
- Semantics all over the place
- Protocols coming and going
- Things breaking
- Things not scaling
- Crowded place, many new unproven players
- Pump & Dump IPOs
- Scams rampant
- Slow mainstream adoption (e.g. e-commerce)
- dotcom crash 2000
- “This online web thing will never work…”
Web2 is the internet today, dominated by tech giants. It’s built on client-server architecture where users are the client and companies control the servers. These companies extract value from creators and users by sitting in the middle.
Web 3 – Sounds familiar? (today)
- Semantics all over the place
- Protocols coming and going
- Things breaking
- Things not scaling
- Crowded place, many new unproven players
- Pump & Dump ICOs
- Scams rampant
- Slow mainstream adoption
- ICO winter 2018
- “This blockchain crypto thing will never work…”
Web3 is the internet that’s being pioneered by crypto;peer-to-peer networks of computers that talk to each other without middlemen using blockchain tech. It’s the new Wild Wild West, the new frontier of the Internet.
As we now know, this Web 1 (and Web 2) thing worked out insanely well for some.
For those who made themselves dependant on these centralised platforms – and then the platforms changed – it turned out not so great:
TL;DR
- Web1 was about creating value at/for the edges; the developers and users
- Web2 is about creating value for the centralised platforms, the middlemen, the rentseekers, the gatekeepers
- Web3 is a return to creating value at/for the edges; the developers and users – reclaiming independence from centralised platforms (at best)
- Web3 is about trust, ownership, and decentralisation (grifters paradise at worst)
- Crypto & Blockchain enables and empowers trust, ownership, and decentralisation (and scams)
- Web3 is where the Internet wants to go at the moment (subject to change)
- Yes, there’s an energy consumption issue with crypto relying on “proof of work”, but alternatives exist, Etherium is supposed to switch to “proof of stake”, and pow miners are “going green” at a fast rate, it’s getting better
- Yes, there are problems still with the concept of “decentralised”, e.g. a lot of tech being built on crypto rely on centralised platforms, and crypto platforms have been known to freeze assets and reverse transactions (which arguably should not be possible – that’s the whole crypto decentralised schtick), we’re not quite there yet today
Also check out Peter Yang’s great beginners guide on crypto. It’s my go-to resource when trying to explain to the uninitiated. It’s the best first step guide I have read so far.
Conclusion & Recommendations
- It’s 1999 all over again, and the train has left the station, this may also be a boom and a bust – so don’t bet the barn 1999-style, but do dive in and participate, ask yourself if you can afford to miss the value creation in a pioneer age (again), worst case you’ll learn something
- You cannot disrupt the disruptors, don’t try to compete with startups because you’ll lose – acquire or create own initiatives
- Look over your shoulder and around you, who’s [startups] making blockchain / crypto waves near you, reach out and start a relationship – worst case they’ll ignore you, best case you’ll develop new biz opportunities
- Leverage your existing IP and its fan base, it’s something no startup will ever have, think of new ways of monetizing and including fans in new ways of participating
- DON’T BLOCKCHAIN EVERYTHING, use trust and ownership as heuristics; if neither is involved, skip – also think about internal or b2b processes that could be more efficient or cheaper using blockchain tech
- Look at internal work, internal processes that could possibly be automated using e.g. smart contracts – there’s probably a lot of smart people doing a lot of stupid work that could be freed up by automation (also see above)
- Think really hard about how you are going to attract the next superstar artists, offering newer generations more tools to monetize their art and let their fans better participate will naturally be a competitive advantage – crypto could be a part of that toolset mix
- Now is the time to get onboard, destination unknown: it may go nowhere – so don’t bet the barn – but now is the time to get onboard to eff around & find out, get positioned in time
Speaking on Lean Startup in India again
I’m honored to be invited back to the Entrepreneurship Awareness Drive by Entrepreneurship Cell IIT Kharagpur.
I’m going to try my best to describe what the Lean Startup methodologies are all about and why they are important.
On (tech) leadership
Recently I was on the Tech Leadership podcast and spoke a bit about my experiences and my leadership philosophy.
Have a listen to the episode.
On the Gründerstipendium.NRW so far
Yesterday I gave feedback on a panel with Andreas Pinkwart, Minister for Economic Affairs of the state of NRW, and others, from my experience as a juror of the Gründerstipendium.NRW scholarship, the state-driven program aiming to help more people starting new innovative businesses in the German state of North-Rhine Westphalia, awarding a monthly EUR 1.000,- for 12 months to new innovative companies and founders.
My main feedback so far was:
1. A better, more transparent labelling or identification of the respective jurys’ (there are several spread across the state, each with their own set of main competencies) main competencies and domain experience to make it easier for a startup or founder to select which jury to pitch in front of that can best judge their degree of innovation and viability instead of having to travel criss-cross the whole state to finally find a jury that understands their domain by luck.
And by that I don’t imply that some juries are better than others. What I am saying is that most of them have different expertises and experiences. Judging a new retail store concept is not the same as judging a new nanoparticle coating material, judging the viability of a new social network for tweens a whole different ball game altogether.
It could be better for the applicants to be able to identify which respective jury would be best suited to evaluate their respective innovations, where they should best apply, in advance.
2. A stronger network between alumni, coaches and supporters to facilitate swift help and avoiding that new founders do the same most basic beginner mistakes over and over again. A “private” social network a la #slack MS Teams or Facebook for Work springs to mind als facilitating this. To avoid getting caught up in ministerial red tape, I’d suggest the participating networks set this up by and among themselves.
3. A regulation like an official cool-down period to limit how many times a founder or startup can apply within a set amount of time could be helpful. E.g. x amount of rejections in y time = z cool-down time before a new application will be accepted from you and you’ll have the time to work on their metrics or presentation to improve. Maybe this will improve by itself if the first point is addressed (see above).
4. On a personal note, I shared that I have some personal ethical ambivalence when recommending a founder or startup for the scholarship that has already received funding. (Side note: More of a libertarian than a liberal, I have an ethical reservation with government handouts for private enterprises. Full stop. Incentives – M’kay. Handouts – Nyah). In my view, the market has already voted for a funded company, they shouldn’t be needing this on-top, thus I find it questionable to be giving it government handouts out of my tax money (because let’s face it – this scholarship is the German tax payers’ money at play) or put in another way, supporting leeches gaming the (public) system.
I understand and accept the counter-argument that those cases could count as “collateral damage”, and if they are successful they will return the tax money invested with multiple in returns.
What I do not understand and do not readily accept is the counter-argument that limiting the eligible applicants to founders and companies who have not already taken on investment, not previously raised a round, would complicate the application process. You just need to have a look at the plethora of other criteria already imposed on the applicant to see that that argument is more rhetoric than logic. A simple checkbox yes/no on the application form and relying on scout’s honours would suffice.
Now that wouldn’t be very complicating, would it?