Category Archives: Decentralization
The Roots of Today’s Republicans – The American Prospect
The whole secret of politics, Kevin Phillips told Garry Wills in 1968, is knowing who hates who.
For a timeparticularly during the 1960sPhillips was likely the nations foremost expert on who hated who. As a young scholar of what we might call political demographics, Phillips had noted that the states of the Deep South had forsaken the Democratic Party to vote for Barry Goldwater in the presidential election of 1964, largely due to Goldwaters vote against the Civil Rights Act on the Senate floor earlier that year. Phillips had also noted the votes that George Wallace, Alabamas segregationist governor, had racked up against President Lyndon Johnson in that years Democratic presidential primaries in Wisconsin and Maryland, pulling down a third or more of the votes, chiefly from white working-class voters.
In a memo to 1968 Republican presidential nominee Richard Nixon, on whose campaign he worked, Phillips wrote, The fulcrum of re-alignment is the law and order/Negro socio-economic revolution syndrome, and [Nixon] should continue to emphasize crime, decentralization of federal social programming, and law and order. Republicans had generally written off the South since the end of Reconstruction in the late 1870s. But in his memo to Nixon and in his 1969 book The Emerging Republican Majority, Phillips, who died earlier this month at age 82, called upon Republicans to pursue a Southern strategy by pandering to the regions anticivil rights backlash. In time, this not only turned the white South into the Republicans base but also, decades later, turned Northern state Republican parties into bastions of Southern white values, such as they were.
More from Harold Meyerson
While Goldwater had run on those themes in 1964, its important to realize that at the time the Republican mainstream had yet to embrace them, and in many cases, even consider them. Unlike Goldwater, nearly every other Republican senator had voted for the Civil Rights Act, in keeping with its image as the party of Abraham Lincoln. When Nixon, the very personification of the Republican mainstream, embraced Southern values as well, managing to capture some Southern states and win more Northern Democratic white working-class votes than a Republican normally captured, the template was set for the partys future strategy, which in many ways is also the partys current strategy.
But not in all ways. Nixon wasnt an enemy of government as such; he was, after all, the man who signed the Environmental Policy Act into law and indexed Social Security benefits to changes in the cost of living. He did, however, try to implement the decentralization of federal social programming (i.e., give the white South and other white communities a way to curtail Black advancement), which under Ronald Reagan morphed into opposing federal social programming altogether.
At which point, Phillips got off the train.
There were really only three veterans of Nixons campaign who went on to post-Nixon careers of note, if you exclude all those whose post-Nixon careers landed them in jail for their involvement in Watergate. Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchanan was to double down on the who-hates-who aspects of Nixonism, proclaiming at an earlier point and more loudly than any of his fellow Republicans that the nation was embroiled in a culture war against immigrants, non-Christians, feminists, racial minorities, secularists, and so forth. Fellow Republicans, he intoned, should stand with him at Armageddon and battle for, if not the Lord, then at least Republican culture warriors like him. Buchanan sought and lost the 1992 and 1996 Republican presidential nominations to George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, respectively, but it was his call for a culture war that became the partys mantra.
The second Nixon campaign alum had worked on Nixons television ads and campaign themes, going on to a career in right-wing media and then serving as the chief of Fox News for two decades. Roger Ailes provided a new and exponentially louder megaphone to the culture-war politics of Pat Buchanan, and later, Donald Trump. No one did more to reach out to the whos whose hatred the right needed to stoke if it was to win elections, and to select the whos who it deemed suitable objects for their hatred, even (or especially) if those whos were largely products of Ailess imagination.
Phillips went another way. Like Buchanan and Ailes, he realized that the Republicans reach had been extended to crucial portions of the white working class. But even as they sought to extend that reach by exploiting and triggering the racial, gender, and cultural anxieties and resentments of those voters, Phillips came to understand how working-class Americans were losing ground economically as income and wealth began being redistributed upward under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and continued that way under Bill Clinton and both presidents Bush. By the mid-1980s, he began to report on the deindustrialization of the Midwest and the financialization of corporations under pressure from a newly re-empowered Wall Street. From the late 80s until about a dozen years ago, when he began to succumb to Alzheimers, he authored a string of books that made many of the same points as those by such avowedly left political economists as Barry Bluestone, Ben Harrison, and Prospect co-founder Bob Kuttner.
Phillips even gave a talk at and to the AFL-CIO (beginning with an account of how, as a young lawyer, future Republican President William McKinley had represented unions in court actions). And in the late 90s, I attended a small dinner in Los Angeles, hosted by Marxist historian Perry Anderson (the guiding spirit of New Left Review), at which the visiting Phillips was the guest of honor. The altogether friendly colloquy between Anderson and Phillips didnt presage any kind of leftward-moving realignment, of course, but I do wish someone had recorded it so we could access it today, when Wall Street has become considerably more unpopular than it was then.
Todays Republican Party has gone full Buchanan-Ailes, and still steers clear of the path that Phillips laid out for them, though the current Republican basethe white working classis just as economically submerged (in some ways, more so) as it was when Phillips was writing. Occasionally, a stray GOP culture-war demagogue flirts with elements of economic, as well as racial-cultural, populism, as Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has by walking on a UAW picket line, but such instances are few and far between. More common is Donald Trumps response to the autoworker strike, in which hes endeavored to move workers economic concerns onto the more Republican-friendly turf of opposition to such woke nostrums as electrification and the ostensible climate alarmism that gives it rise.
In a sense, then, the battle for the votes of the white (and not just the white) working class, on which the 2024 presidential election will largely turn, comes down to the contest between these three Nixoniansor more precisely, between them once the post-Nixon Phillips understood the toll that Reaganomics and financialization were taking on the middle and working class. In Joe Biden, at least, the Democrats finally have a president whose economics are as progressive and proworking class as Nixons onetime chief strategists.
Visit link:
Administrator Power Announces More Than $14 Million to Support … – US Embassy in Uzbekistan
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTOffice of Press Relations
For Immediate ReleaseOctober 23, 2023
PRESS RELEASE
Administrator Power Announces More Than $14 Million to Support the People of Uzbekistan
Administrator Samantha Power arrived in Tashkent, Uzbekistan today to deepen the U.S. partnership with the people of Uzbekistan. During her visit, she will announce additional investments, including an additional $14.2 million to strengthen collaboration in global health, governance, and economic growth.
With this additional funding, the United States, through USAID will work to:
Combat Tuberculosis (TB)
Uzbekistan is dealing with high rates of multi-drug resistant TB. USAID is launching TB Free Uzbekistan, a five-year initiative that will invest an additional $3.2 millionto provide comprehensive support services and increase access to key TB services across the country. TB Free Uzbekistan will help prevent and detect transmission, initiate treatment, reduce TB stigma, and also advance Uzbekistans health reforms for improved health information systems and health financing. Since 2002, USAID has invested nearly $60 million to support Uzbekistan efforts to combat TB.
Combat Epidemic and Pandemic Threats
USAID will partner with the Government of Uzbekistan to strengthen global health security. The$4 million investmentwill apply best practices and lessons learned from the COVID-19 response to build Uzbekistans resilience against future outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics. The funding will also allow Uzbekistan to bolster its laboratory and surveillance systems emergency preparedness, risk communication, and community engagement.
Strengthening Businesses and the Private Sector
USAID will invest$3.5 millionto strengthen Uzbekistans economy in targeted sectors like tourism, information and communications technology, and the green economy. This program will help create jobs, improve economic inclusion, develop export markets for small and medium-sized enterprises, and attract capital. USAID will work to remove policy and economic barriers that make it more difficult for women, youth, and people with disabilities to open and operate their businesses. Additionally, USAID will help Uzbekistani businesses to incorporate U.S. technology that can enhance e-commerce and trade.
More Accountable and Effective Local Governance
In support of Uzbekistans Strategy 2030 and working with Congress, USAID will contribute$3.5 millionthrough a new local governance program to strengthen regional and local government in Uzbekistan so that they are more responsive, participatory, and accountable and better able to provide public services to the Uzbek people. The initiative will work with the national and local governments, civil society, and the private sector to create more transparency in local government budgets and expenditures, train public officials to carry out new responsibilities, and equip citizens and communities with the tools, skills and resources they need to monitor local governments activities and advocate for better public services that meet their needs. USAID will also support the government in developing data-driven national policies and legislation on decentralization and local governance.
By U.S. Mission Uzbekistan | Monday, 23 October, 2023 | Topics: News, Press Releases, South & Central Asia, U.S. & Uzbekistan, U.S. Agencies, USAID | Tags: USAID
Original post:
Administrator Power Announces More Than $14 Million to Support ... - US Embassy in Uzbekistan
Prepared Remarks of CFPB Director Rohit Chopra on the Proposed … – Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Good morning, and thank you for being here today.
In the last few decades, sectors across the economy have become more concentrated and centralized. A key priority for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is to ensure that consumer finance markets are fair, transparent, and competitive.
When it comes to our financial lives, a handful of very large banks and financial firms control much of the market. This has left many families with fewer viable options, and many people feel stuck to the provider they signed up with years and years ago. One of the main drivers of these trends is the simple fact that it is too hard to switch providers. Since many deposits and payments are now automatic, people feel that if they make a mistake when switching, theyll face a nightmare of errors and fees. And sometimes, when people close an account, like a credit card, they worry that their credit score will take a hit.
Today, the CFPB is proposing a rule to activate a dormant authority under a 2010 law to accelerate much-needed competition and decentralization in banking and consumer finance by making it easier to switch to a new provider. The Personal Financial Data Rights rule would help address many of the root causes of sticky banking by giving people more power to walk away from bad service and enabling small community banks and nascent competitors to peel away customers through better products and services with more favorable rates.
With strong data protections to prevent misuse and abuse of personal financial data, bringing this 2010 legal provision into reality can lead to a more open and decentralized banking and finance system where consumers can more easily switch, escape junk fees, and obtain better service, rather than feeling stuck and taken for granted.
First, I want to share how activating this dormant authority will jumpstart competition. Second, Ill describe how our proposed rule guards against abuse and misuse of sensitive personal financial data. Ill close with information on our timeline and next steps.
In some markets, competition is fierce. When you go to a restaurant that is overpriced with lousy service, it will be hard for that restaurant to stay in business. Thats because customers will stop coming back and theyll tell others to stay away.
But sometimes, markets are structured in ways that dont allow us to easily vote with our feet. In the 1990s, wireless phones quickly grew in popularity. Choosing a wireless phone provider was a high-stakes decision. Thats because switching was an enormous headache. If you switched your carrier, you couldnt take your phone number with you. Youd have to tell everyone about your new number and the costs of making a mistake were high, especially for those operating businesses or dealing with medical care.
The Federal Communications Commission eventually developed a policy requiring wireless number portability. This dramatically changed the calculus for switching. Rather than being locked in, you could now switch with less hassle, and that led to better prices and service.
Many consumer finance markets are also structured in ways that dont allow consumers to exercise their power. In some markets, like credit reporting and mortgage servicing, consumers dont even get to choose who they have to work with. In others, like credit cards and deposit accounts, financial firms have learned that they dont need to provide great rates or customer service for a sustained period of time. Instead, they can attract customers with teaser rates, change them whenever they want, and make it bureaucratically difficult to switch.
American families can see the imbalance between them and their financial providers. As market interest rates have risen, many struggle to find credit cards and loans at affordable rates, and, yet the largest banks have not been paying those same families much more for their savings. Millions of families are being paid interest rates as low as 0.01 percent on their bank accounts, even though other institutions are offering rates that are way higher, even up to 5 percent.
This reflects the current reality that many banks design their products sometimes purposely so that its a hassle to switch, just like wireless phones used to be. On average, Americans have had the same checking account for 17 years. If switching were easier, American families could earn billions of dollars more in interest each year.
The same is true when it comes to borrowing. The credit card market is dominated by a handful of big players. Most have hiked their interest rates they charge on monthly credit card bills substantially. While market interest rates have gone up, theyve gone up even higher than the index rates. For example, many credit cards are priced with a certain number of percentage points, or spread, above the Prime Rate. Our analysis of the credit card market reveals average credit card rates at their highest spread above the Prime Rate since 1995.
Of course, prices are only part of the equation. Quality service also matters. In a competitive market, companies have an incentive to provide great customer service. But when a company knows youre unlikely to leave, they dont have the same incentive to serve you well.
The CFPBs proposed rule would require that financial firms offering transaction accounts like checking accounts, prepaid cards, credit cards, and digital wallets give you access to your personal financial data, so you can share or transfer the data to another provider.
This will make it much easier to switch. You wont lose your transaction history, which effectively serves as a life ledger. You wont have to start over with a new firm that has less history with you and that is less likely to offer you better deals.
In addition, bringing in your personal financial ledger to a new provider will let them consider your full financial history when offering you a loan, instead of relying on a summary from the credit reporting conglomerates. This means that individuals without years and years of credit history or those who may have had stumbles in the past can now be evaluated based on their current income and expenses. It will also allow people to better manage their finances by bringing their banking and loan information into one place.
This helps small financial institutions and startups as well. Theyll be able to receive data from consumers more quickly and with fewer bureaucratic stumbling blocks, rather than processing reams of printouts of bank statements in different formats. This can help them avoid unnecessary costs and focus on providing better service at better rates.
Next, I want to discuss how our proposed rule guards against exploitation of our personal data.
Exploitation of personal data by bad actors is a real concern, and financial data is a particularly valuable commodity. We have seen firsthand how some financial firms, including major players in China, are ingesting data in ways that raise risks of invasive financial surveillance and censorship.
That is why our proposal sets out a clear prohibition. Companies receiving data can only use it to provide the product people asked for, and for nothing else. When a consumer permits their private data to be used by a company for a specific purpose, it is not a free pass for that company to exploit the data for other uses.
Importantly, the rule says that firms that receive financial data to provide a specific service cannot feed the data into algorithms for unrelated activities, such as targeted advertising and marketing. Firms couldnt collect data to provide a service, and then also monetize it by selling to data brokers. Authorized data also couldnt be used to train artificial intelligence that manipulates consumer behavior.
And firms would not be able to hold onto your personal financial data indefinitely. If a consumer chooses to end a relationship, the firm would have to stop collecting and using the consumers data as well as delete the data it already possesses.
The CFPBs effort will help to accelerate the shift to what is known as open banking. A more decentralized market structure will give consumers more control and minimize the ability for companies to take customers for granted.
Our proposed rule builds on existing efforts in the industry today to promote decentralization. For firms operating globally, it also aligns with many of the guidelines in place or under consideration in other major jurisdictions around the world.
After reviewing comments on the proposal, we will look to finalize the rule by next fall. We will also be issuing additional information on how industry standard-setting organizations can obtain recognition from the CFPB. Market players will be able to look to these standards, which will evolve with time as technology progresses, to be part of the new open banking ecosystem in the United States. We also intend to cover additional product types in future rulemaking, to continue to foster more competition and consumer choice throughout the market.
Over time, I hope our work to activate this dormant authority, jumpstart competition, and promote decentralization in finance will help American families put billions of dollars in their pockets, while allowing small players startups to go head-to-head with major market players.
Thank you.
Continue reading here:
Navigating decentralized governance in Web3: Balance of … – Cointelegraph
As the digital landscape evolves, decentralized governance has become an important notion to foster a fair and inclusive ecosystem. In the trend toward transparency and collaborative decision-making, analyzing companies roles and responsibilities in this new paradigm is critical as we navigate the exciting realm of decentralized governance in search of the ideal balance of transparency and control.
The conventional system of centralized control is called into question by decentralized governance. The goal is to equally share power and decision-making authority among participants while encouraging transparency and inclusiveness. However, striking a balance becomes critical when considering corporations roles in this shifting environment.
Organizations play an important role in decentralized governance by serving as collaborative leaders and catalysts. They create spaces for people to share their expertise, collaborate and build communities. Organizations believe in empowering individuals and contributing to the ecosystems growth via their efforts.
Great power comes with great responsibility. Organizations must recognize their position as promoters of fairness and integrity. Everyone is responsible for prioritizing and promoting the greater good of the community while protecting against abuse. Organizations may foster trust and an environment where everyone has an equal voice by emphasizing transparency and responsibility.
Decentralized responsibility demands avoiding the flaws of centralized systems by learning from the past. It pushes inclusiveness and fairness while avoiding the power imbalances that plagued Web 2. Organizations must actively engage with the community to build a collaborative and shared decision-making culture with the following:
Decentralized governances future depends upon striking an appropriate balance between transparency and control. By actively embracing the community, organizations can develop an ecosystem that is not just educational and powerful but also fun and inclusive. We can collaborate to create a world wherein good vibes, knowledge exchange, fair, transparent, balanced and effective governance coexist.
Does Web3 need the foundation that Web2 gave us? The solution reveals an essential relationship between the past and the future by demonstrating a developed symphony of innovation and continuity. Web2 helped establish a foundation for the emergence of Web3, an environment where decentralization and user empowerment take center stage because of its dynamic user-generated content, integration and limitless innovation. While Web3 marks the beginning of a new era, it does continue to stand on the strong shoulders of Web2. It relies on its technologies, infrastructure and services to pave the way for a more decentralized, secure and immersive digital experience.
Finally, as we move forward on emerging technologies such as AI and decentralization, let us remember to remain optimistic and seize the opportunities that lie ahead of us. Lets come together, exchange ideas and harness technology for the greater good. By working collectively, we can create positive change and contribute to a more transparent, seamsless, ethical, inclusive and sustainable future.
Pioneering Blockchain Solutions as CEO ofBlock Tides| Forbes Business Council Member | CoinMarketCap Key Opinion Leader
This article was published through Cointelegraph Innovation Circle, a vetted organization of senior executives and experts in the blockchain technology industry who are building the future through the power of connections, collaboration and thought leadership. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Cointelegraph.
See the rest here:
Navigating decentralized governance in Web3: Balance of ... - Cointelegraph
Cryptos decentralization problem: The word is used too often to justify bad product decisions – Fortune
If you spend time with crypto people, a word you will hear a lot is decentralization. The word describes a form of governance, but it also stands for much more than thatits an ideal to which every blockchain project is supposed to aspire and has taken on a near-religious status. And that can be a problem.
I was reminded of this when talking to Jesse Walden, cofounder of VC fund Variant, which has just hired prominent crypto lawyer Jake Chervinsky to help the firm and its 30 or so portfolio companies navigate the perilous regulatory waters for U.S. blockchain projects. The pair said this task often involves designing a process of progressive decentralization.
The term reflects the reality that nothing is decentralized out of the gate and that the process should take place gradually. A persistent issue in the space is that teams try to speed run the first two stepsbuilding a product and then decentralizing. Its critical for many products to have leadership out of the gate while seeking product-market fit, Walden told me.
Its refreshing to hear such talk. After years of covering crypto startups, its been frustrating to watch projects repeatedly try to claim they are decentralized when obviously they are notor to spin up decentralization arrangements not because their product would benefit, but because they are trying to check a legal box. Their motives for doing this are rarely informed by a Satoshi-like ideal, but rather a desire to get rich quickly by dumping some sort of crappy token on the market.
I was also glad to hear Walden say that some projects are simply not fit for decentralization at all, and to acknowledge that, historically, corporations and democracies are the best structures we have come up with for human decision-making. This sort of pragmatism and maturity has too often been lacking in an industry where decentralization is too often invoked to justify poor product design and to conceal ulterior motives.
This doesnt mean, of course, that building projects without a central gatekeeper or authority is impossible. Bitcoin proved this long ago, and, as Walden pointed out to me, there are other recent successful examples of decentralization such as the giant DeFi platform Uniswap. Satoshis vision is very much alive, and people are achieving itthough doing so is a much harder task than most people will admit, and one that shouldnt even be attempted in some blockchain projects where centralized control is the only practical solution.
More broadly, my conversation with Variant was a welcome reminder that, even as the media digs in for weeks of wall-to-wall coverage of Sam Bankman-Frieds trial, the crypto industry is still building away. And speaking of SBF, I found time to write a proper review of Michael Lewiss Going Infinitea book that is poised to tarnish the famous writers legacy but that also contains many new details that are essential reading for anyone who follows this industry closely. Have a great weekend.
Jeff John Robertsjeff.roberts@fortune.com@jeffjohnroberts
Binances share of spot-market trading has fallen to 34% from 55% in January, and has declined for seven straight months, in part, due to the elimination of many zero-fee promotions. (Bloomberg)
A group of FTX employees discovered the exchanges back door that let Bankman-Frieds hedge fund trade without losses but were forced out after reporting it. (WSJ)
JPMorgan warned that Ethereum has become more centralized a year after the blockchain switched to proof-of-stake, potentially making it more vulnerable to oligopoly or hackers. (CoinDesk)
Hardware maker Ledger laid off 12% of its staff, a decision that comes shortly after analytics firm Chainalysis cut headcount by 15%. (Bloomberg)
Authorities seized two private jets valued at more than $28 million from Sam I drive a used Toyota Bankman-Fried.(Fortune)
Far from over:
Excerpt from:
What Can You Trust in a Trustless System – S&P Global
Introduction
This report follows How DeFis Operational Risks Could Influence Credit Quality, (published June 7, 2023), in which we explored the range of operational risks that can arise in decentralized finance (DeFi) applications. In this report, we take a deep dive into blockchain-specific risks. It is worth noting that operational risks exist in traditional financial infrastructure. (See Operational Resilience Is Key To Global FMIs Rating Strength, Chart 5, Outages Are Common For Global FMIs.) What is new in blockchain technology is how these risks can materialize and how they can be remedied or avoided.
This report focuses on three examples of blockchains that are prominent in DeFi and have supported recent use cases that interact with the traditional financial system: Ethereum, Polygon and Solana. We highlight that although decentralization may reduce the presence of intermediaries, blockchains still include material trust assumptions and dependencies. Currently, blockchain operational risks do not affect ratings, as rated issuers have only started dipping their toes in the water. As use cases for public blockchains begin to expand through the financial system, it is important to understand where dependencies lie, and what can go wrong and how, to effectively mitigate these risks. We also explore the direction of these blockchains, including the impact of zero knowledge (ZK) proof technology. We include a glossary of technical terms and related research at the end of this report.
In this report, we take a deep dive into the following three blockchains:
Ethereum is the blockchain with the largest DeFi ecosystem. Its initial design has prioritized decentralization and security at the cost of scalability. Specifically, decentralization is made possible by minimizing the hardware requirements to participate as a validator in the network, allowing many individuals to participate. However, minimizing hardware requirements involves limiting the number of transactions that can be processed in each block, hindering scalability. Ethereum uses a proof of stake (PoS) consensus mechanism (see next section). Its Ethereum virtual machine (EVM) provides the bedrock for a growing ecosystem of scalability focused blockchain solutions compatible with the main Ethereum chain (Ethereum mainnet).
Polygon PoS is a sidechain to Ethereum, meaning that it is a separate blockchain that is compatible with the EVM and connected to the Ethereum mainnet through a two-way bridge. It aims to increase scalability relative to the Ethereum mainnet while benefiting from some, but not all, of Ethereums decentralization and security. It uses a PoS mechanism that is similar to but separate from Ethereums.
Solana is designed to prioritize scalability and security at the expense of some centralization. Specifically, and in contrast with Ethereum, it prioritizes high transaction throughput, increasing the hardware requirements for validators to a point where currently only professional operators can participate. Whereas Polygon aims to develop within the Ethereum ecosystem, Solana aims to develop a separate ecosystem. Solana uses a proof of history mechanism, which is a modified PoS consensus mechanism that allows parallel validation by timestamping transactions and enhances transaction throughput.
Polygon PoS consensus mechanism is similar to Ethereums and is connected to the Ethereum mainnet. Like Ethereum, the consensus for finality is two-thirds of the validators. There is a smart contract stored on the Ethereum mainnet to interact with Polygon validators. These smart contracts address the issues of staking management, delegation of validator shares and checkpoints. The PoS layer for Polygon is the validator layer where all blocks since the last checkpoint are validated and then coded to be stored on the Ethereum mainnet. The block-producing layer where individual transactions are aggregated into blocks is all EVM-compatible, allowing for the final blocks to be stored on the Ethereum mainnet. For more information, please seehttps://wiki.polygon.technology/docs/pos/what-is-polygon-pos/
Validators stake Polygons native token, MATIC, to participate in the network. Polygon PoS selects block producers and checkpoint proposers among validators based on their stake ratio, including delegations. Rewards are given to all validators at every checkpoint according to their stake ratio. Validators can leave the network at any time and withdraw their tokens at the end of an unbonding period.
Solana uses a proof-of-history (PoH) mechanism, which is a modified PoS consensus mechanism that allows parallel validation by timestamping transactions and thus enhancing transaction throughput. With PoH, a block proposer uses a verifiable delay function to keep the PoH digital ledger and encrypt timestamps for each transaction, providing a verifiable and permissionless source of time. This technique enhances the platforms throughput by allowing nodes to review blocks without reviewing the entire chain and enabling parallel processing of transactions. The PoH mechanism, combined with other innovative features, allows Solana to achieve scalability with low transaction fees.
A fundamental design choice when building a blockchain is how it will behave in the event of an accidental or malevolent security event. Ethereum has a liveness biased design intended to avoid any outage from the users perspective. Indeed, to date, Ethereum has not experienced such an outage per se: Risks arise, rather, in the form of delayed finality (that is, a delay before new blocks become immutable (see sidebar Ethereums delayed finality event in May 2023 in next section). In contrast, Solana and Polygon are security biased blockchains: If a bug or attack prevents achieving consensus, these blockchains may experience an outage (that is, users will not be able to transact) while the security risk is addressed.
The timeline below illustrates the major outages on Polygon and Solana. Outages have occurred mainly when high network demand has stretched validator resources or triggered bugs in the client software used to validate the network. In some cases, high network demand has resulted from a distributed denial-of-service cyberattack: Low transaction costs enabled attackers to flood these blockchains with transactions. Both platforms have implemented modifications to their transaction fee structure to reduce vulnerability to such attacks. Solana has also increased its number of validators, whereas Polygon aims to achieve this as part of its Polygon 2.0 proposal (described later in this report).
Public blockchains mitigate cyberrisk through decentralization: In the absence of a centralized node operator, it is very difficult for an attacker to control or shut down the network (see Cyber Brief: Reviewing the Credit Aspects of Blockchain, published May 5, 2022). In the chart below, we illustrate the example of Ethereum and how its proof of-stake consensus mechanism addresses cyberrisk. An attackers ability to influence the network is directly related to the share of validator nodes that it controls and, therefore, to the volume of ETH the attacker has staked. The key defense mechanisms inhibiting any attack include:
The cost of accumulating a stake large enough to launch an attack, against the near certainty that substantially all of this stake will be lost if the attack is successful.
Slashing mechanisms to reduce the stake of validators that are behaving dishonestly.
Social defense mechanisms: Honest validators can withhold consensus attestations on the chain and create a minority fork, to which all economic activity can migrate (see the chart Governance and social layer in the next section).
In addition to the cost, it is difficult to accumulate such a proportion of control because there is a waiting time to activate new validators, and any stake accumulation is highly visible on-chain, making it difficult to reenter following an initial attack.
The impossibility of creating invalid states of the chain: Even with control over a large share of validator nodes, there are limits to what an attacker can actually gain through rewriting history on the chain.
The mitigation of long-range reorg attacks through regular validator checkpoints through time. This type of attack involves a validator that participated in the genesis of the chain, maintaining a separate chain until at some later point it attempts to have this separate chain accepted by validators as the legitimate chain. Simply put, validator checkpoints mitigate this risk because the consensus mechanism cannot be used to accept an alternative chain prior to the latest checkpoint. The risk of attack is, therefore, limited to short range and focused on the most recent blocks.
Risk of cyberattack on EthereumAs of Oct. 9, 2023.* Based on the price of ETH and volume staked.Sources: Ethereum proof-of-stake attack and defense; ethereum.org; Dune (@hildobby). 2023 S&P Global.
Although decentralization may reduce the presence of intermediaries, blockchains still include material trust assumptions and dependencies. As highlighted in the previous section, the consensus mechanism that underpins a blockchains security requires the continuous participation of a sufficient number of honest validators. It can also be halted or delayed, in particular by bugs in client software. Here we take a look at various forms of concentration risk within the validator network for these blockchains, and also at dependencies within their governance structure.
Validator nodes control a blockchains consensus mechanism. As discussed in the prior section, dishonest or inactive validator nodes can compromise the security of a blockchain; therefore, concentration of validator nodes represents a security risk. Of the three examples considered in this report, Ethereums design is the most focused on decentralization, with more than 800,000 validators. In contrast, Solana has approximately 2,000 validators, and Polygons maximum validator count is set at 100. Even if validator nodes are widely distributed, multiple validator nodes may be operated by the same entity: The chart below illustrates how even Ethereum can, therefore, be exposed to concentration risk. A node operator could act malevolently or in a way that is detrimental to the networks interests. Further, it may itself be subject to technological risks or attacks. Concentration at the node operator level can, therefore, create risks to the consensus mechanism even in a highly decentralized network.
An attackers ability to affect Ethereums consensus mechanism grows in proportion to the share of validator nodes it controls, and the first material threshold is 33% of nodes (see the chart Risk of cyberattack on Ethereum). Lido is approaching this threshold (see the chart Ethereum share of validator nodes). It is, therefore, important to understand the risk this could represent to Ethereum:
Lido is a decentralized staking protocol, allowing ETH holders to stake, and earn staking yield, through the protocol without the operational burden of running a node themselves, or the need to have the 32 ETH required to stake to run a node. Lidos share, therefore, represents the stake of approximately 270,000 that are able to withdraw from the protocol (thereby reducing Lidos share) if there is a concern with the direction of the protocol.
The nodes controlled by the Lido protocol are operated by 31 entities, reducing rogue operator risk, with a distribution of consensus clients (see next section) that is consistent with that of the network overall. The protocol governance mechanism selects the node operators and can dismiss them if a concern emerges. The operators can also leave the protocol; however, the stake belongs to the protocol, so this would not reduce Lidos share.
Viewing Lido as a single point of failure risk is, therefore, an oversimplification. Nonetheless, the concentration risk remains relevant because decisions taken by the Lido protocol governance (which is controlled by holders of the native token, LDO) could plausibly have an impact on Ethereum. Lidos share of validators is on a continuous upward trend, so understanding evolutions in its governance is important to understanding risks on Ethereum.
Clients are the software packages that each validator node is running to execute transactions, validate the proposed block and send attestations of its validity. A bug in or an attack on this client software could take validators offline and compromise the consensus mechanism: If there are insufficient validators to provide consensus, new blocks cannot be finalized and, therefore, do not achieve immutability. This occurred on Ethereum in May 2023 (see sidebar When client risk materializes: Ethereums delayed finality event in May 2023). Client diversification is a stated aim of the blockchains addressed in this report: Different software packages are built by different companies, to the same specification, but using different coding languages and structures. This builds some redundancy into a blockchains consensus mechanism because a bug affecting one client would only affect the validators using that client software. The risk that such a bug could delay block finality is a function of client concentration risk: If there is sufficient diversification of clients, a client issue will not in itself affect sufficient validators to prevent finality.
Client diversification is generally improving over time as new clients emerge; however, material concentrations remain. All three blockchains discussed in this report are exposed to client concentrations that exceed the 33% threshold that can lead to finality issues (see the chart Risk of cyberattack on Ethereum). Having launched more recently, Solana and Polygon both have higher client concentration than Ethereum; therefore, if a client bug arises, it is more likely to disrupt these blockchains (see the chart Major outages on Polygon and Solana). Currently, there are two available clients for use on the Solana blockchain, although the development of new clients is underway.
In May 2023, a bug affected some of Ethereums consensus clients, representing more than 33% of validator nodes. Validators running these clients were unable to validate blocks; therefore, Ethereum could not achieve finality. This was the first such delay since Ethereum moved to a proof-of stake consensus mechanism in October 2022. Client development teams addressed the bug quickly, and finality was resumed in a matter of hours, with no other significant consequence. A longer delay would impede the settlement of financial transactions, so understanding these concentration risks and considering how to mitigate such a scenario are important in designing on chain financial applications. The design of the blockchain itself includes some mitigation because inactive validators stakes are slashed gradually, meaning that eventually they would represent less than 33% of staked ETH; therefore, the remaining active validators would be sufficient to achieve finality.
The validator consensus mechanisms described above form a blockchains on-chain governance. It is also important to understand which aspects of a blockchain may change over time, as well as the process, timeline and visibility for future changes, and who the decision-makers are. This governance happens off-chain through information sharing (a social layer), change management (governance structure) and a core developer team that often drives the creation, major changes and funding of innovation for a blockchain. While many participants in these types of governance are also participants on-chain, understanding their off-chain roles, responsibilities and interactions is important to understanding how a blockchain may evolve. On-chain features and risks are baked into a blockchains coding language, smart contracts and structure. If the participants or the community want to address these risks or create different opportunities, they must rely on the other off-chain factors of governance (see the chart Governance and social layer).
These layers of governance work together to address any changes for the blockchain. Changes can be small and compatible with previous blocks. More significant changes can cause a hard fork of the chain. If the community does not achieve consensus on such changes, different participants may choose the new path or stay on the existing one, effectively creating two blockchains and letting market forces determine which one is used.
This level of interaction and responsibility enables community coordination that can help protect the network from bad actors and resolve any technical vulnerability that may arise. During an attack or bug event, information can be shared quickly through various communication boards, and core developers can coordinate with client team developers to test and implement fixes. This has been a major factor in limiting the impact of outages and finality delays, which to date have generally been resolved within hours.
Ethereum, Polygon and Solana follow a broadly similar blockchain change management process, which engages the broader community of developers and stakeholders. There are some nuances in how a proposed change is reviewed and implemented, how long it takes to implement and who can approve. There are also potential trade-offs to manage between decentralization (involving the broader community in a decision) and the need to make rapid changes in a crisis.
None of the three blockchains discussed in this report currently include a formal token holder voting mechanism to implement changes, although recent discussions within the Solana community are exploring this. Where such a mechanism exists, key considerations in assessing governance risk include:
The role that a governance token may play in approving certain decisions, where applicable.
Any large concentration among the holders of such governance tokens.
Whether the benefits accruing to these holders incentivize the safeguarding of the protocol.
A blockchains social layer is made up of its developers (core developers, client developers and application developers) and users more broadly and serves several important roles. When reviewing the on-chain improvement process, it is the members of this community that often propose improvements and discuss as a group their views on the proposed changes. These open-forum discussions aim to identify potential pitfalls and desirability prior to implementation and allow coordination between development teams. Looking at the number of active developers for each blockchain is one indicator of the level of community engagement.
Based on data from Electric Capitals developer report, the number of active developers has grown for all three chains over the past five years, and very rapidly for Solana and Polygon. As the oldest of the three blockchains, Ethereums growth is slower; however, it maintains by far the largest active developer community.
The Ethereum Foundation, Polygon Labs and Solana Labs are entities set up by the creators of these respective blockchains. These entities (non-profit organizations or firms) can help fund innovation and drive new ideas within the broader community. As such, they play an important role in governance discussions. In considering a long-term financial use of these blockchains, potential users must, therefore, understand these entities visions for developments to their blockchain. However, it is also important to understand that each blockchain could continue to operate without these entities. Given the open-source nature of a public permissionless blockchain, the remaining social layer could continue to use and support the chains existence.
The initial design of Solana prioritized security and scalability over decentralization. By maximizing transaction throughput potential, Solana required advanced hardware to be a validator. This effectively limited validators initially to professional operators, with the expectation that over time, hardware improvements would allow decentralization to a broader network of validators. In contrast, the design of Ethereum initially prioritized decentralization, with relatively low validator hardware requirements but accepting the resulting limits on transaction throughput, with the expectation that developments to Ethereum itself would improve scalability. Ethereums roadmap to improve scalability over time features a modular blockchain architecture, where further blockchains (layer 2 roll-ups) that are optimized for scalability can be built on top of the main Ethereum network. This contrasts with Solanas monolithic design where scalability is achieved within one blockchain.
Roll-ups work by grouping transactions, executing them on a separate blockchain (the roll-up chain), and then posting the new state information resulting from these transactions back to the Ethereum blockchain (layer 1) as a single transaction. Executing transactions on layer 2 significantly reduces the computation load on layer 1, as well as the transaction costs paid by users because the single transaction cost on layer 1 is socialized across all users who have submitted a transaction on layer 2. Posting data back to layer 1 ensures that layer 2 benefits from the same security guarantees as layer 1 in terms of immutability and data availability across all nodes on the chain (see the chart Addressing Ethereum scalability through layer 2 roll-ups).
A key consideration in layer 2 roll-ups is how to ascertain the validity of the updated state that is posted back to layer 1 when transactions have been executed. There are currently two models:
Optimistic roll-ups assume all the transactions are valid unless proven otherwise and rely on the active participation of users to identify and prevent invalid transactions. If a user identifies an invalid transaction, it is up to that user to challenge that transaction within a set challenge period (usually seven days) by providing a fraud proof. The roll up smart contract on layer 1 verifies this fraud proof, and if a transaction is confirmed as invalid, the roll-up chain is rolled back to the state prior to the invalid transaction. Users cannot withdraw funds from a roll-up smart contract immediately because the withdrawal transaction can only complete once the applicable challenge period has terminated.
Zero-knowledge roll-ups provide validity proofs along with the new state information using ZK proof systems, a cryptographic solution that verifies the truth of a given statement without conveying any information about the truth. This means that the validity of transactions is confirmed instantaneously without the need for user intervention or any subsequent challenge period. The transmission of ZK proofs has a low computational cost and, therefore, boosts scalability; however, the computation of the proofs is more intensive and can lead to latency issues. Beyond scalability, ZK research is also focused on enabling privacy in blockchain applications, potentially supporting regulatory compliance for financial institutions and overcoming a major roadblock for institutional adoption. ZK proofs allow for verification of the truth of a specific statement (for example, the exclusion of a user from a set of sanctioned individuals) without transmitting all data about that user and their transaction history. For more information. (See Blockchain Privacy and Regulatory Compliance: Towards a Practical Equilibrium by Vitalik Buterin, Jacob Illum, Matthias Nadler, Fabian Schr and Ameen Soleimani.)
Roll-ups are more complex than the Ethereum mainnet because they aim to add functionality and speed. This makes them more susceptible to outage risk. They are also relatively recent technological developments that will be battle-tested as they scale, which may identify vulnerabilities that need to be addressed. This is particularly true for ZK roll-ups, where the unknown unknowns represent a risk. Beyond the broad risks associated with complexity and technological innovation, roll-ups include specific risks and dependencies that must be understood when considering their use for a financial application.
The following risks apply to both optimistic and ZK roll-ups:
Upgradability: The smart contracts underpinning both types of roll-ups are upgradable, introducing a dependency on whoever can amend the code. Currently, the development team behind each roll-up can change the code in the smart contract, generally subject to multi-signature approval, where any nine out of 12 keys in a multi-signature wallet must approve the change (and the bulk of these keys are held by the development team). In some cases, decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) governance is in place, and DAO approval is needed for any change, although DAOs themselves can carry their own voter concentration risks. On one hand, this can mitigate the risk associated with the novelty of the technology because a vulnerability that is identified can be addressed quickly. On the other hand, it introduces a trust assumption that users need to be aware of.
Reliance on a central sequencer: The sequencer orders transactions in the batch to create the new state to return to layer 1. Although most roll-up developers claim that eventually this role will be decentralized, currently, roll-ups rely on a central sequencer, creating an operational dependency. From a users perspective, the actual risk exposure to the sequencer is not critical because there are limits to what a sequencer can do: It cannot withdraw funds for itself, amend or directly censor transactions.
The following risks apply to optimistic roll-ups only:
Optimistic fraud proofs: At their core, optimistic roll-ups rely on the assumption that someone will challenge an invalid state if one occurs. One way for a user to get comfortable with this assumption is to act as a fraud prover themselves, which is possible where permissionless fraud proofs are enabled. At the time of writing, however, fraud proofs were live on Arbitrum One but not on other major optimistic roll ups such as Optimism or Base (according to L2Beats, a blockchain analytics company).
Risk of a delay attack on an optimistic roll-up: Any user can challenge the validity of a given transaction on an optimistic roll-up by providing a fraud proof during the challenge period (typically seven days after a transaction is executed.) If a fraud proof is submitted, this starts a resolution period (typically, a further seven days). During the resolution period, transactions cannot be confirmed, and users cannot withdraw funds from the roll-up. If a further fraud proof is provided during the resolution period, a new resolution period is initiated. Therefore, an attacker could plausibly submit repeated fraud proofs on valid transactions to prevent the layer 2 from operating.
Layer 2s lower transaction costs and fast throughput have supported relatively rapid adoption since the first optimistic roll-ups went live in 2021 (see the chart Daily transactions on Ethereum mainnet and selected layer 2 roll-ups). ZKsync was the firstZK roll-up to go live on top of the Ethereum mainnet in March 2023, and the novelty of the technology has contributed to limiting adoption so far. Base is the latest optimistic roll-up, launched by Coinbase, a leading crypto exchange, in August 2023 (see the sidebar Base: Coinbases optimistic roll-up). It has quickly matched Optimism and Arbitrum in terms of daily transaction count, boosted by Coinbases customer base and brand recognition.
On Aug. 9, 2023, Coinbase, a major global crypto exchange, launched Base, an optimistic roll-up. Base is built on Optimism Labs OP Stack and is, therefore, similar to Optimism and other existing optimistic roll-ups, and not a technological innovation in itself. On Sept. 5, Base experienced its first major outage that lasted approximately 45 minutes, before Coinbase developers addressed the issue. This highlighted both the operational risk in using these tools at scale and the prompt reactivity of the developers involved in the roll-up.
The next step in the Ethereum scaling roadmap is Proto-Danksharding. This will be implemented as part of the next major update to the Ethereum blockchain (referred to as the Cancun update), which the Ethereum community expects will take place in late 2023 or early 2024. Currently, roll-ups store transaction data permanently onthe Ethereum layer 1 chain, such that anyone can download and verify historical data. The idea behind Proto-Danksharding is that it is not necessary to store this data perpetually to guarantee the security of the chain. Instead, roll-up data will be stored temporarily on blobs linked to each block on the layer 1 chain, and the blob data would be deleted periodically. Participants would still be able to download data before it isdeleted to keep an off-chain record if desired. Validators will no longer need to store the full record of all historical roll-up transactions to participate in the network. This supports decentralization by improving the economics of data storage and reducing the computational load on validator nodes. It addresses the risk that otherwise, the volume of data on the blockchain would balloon over time, increasing the hardware requirement to act as a validator and thereby leading to centralization.
Polygon 2.0 is a further example of continuous development in the blockchain landscape. It is a proposed upgrade to the Polygon network that aims to further improve scalability. Rather than a single blockchain, the proposal would create a network of interoperable and EVM-compatible ZK roll-ups connected to the Ethereum mainnet. Potential users could build their own ZK roll-up within this ecosystem to suit their needs for example, in terms of privacy and permissioning, or relative to the trade-offs highlighted in the chart The blockchain design trilemma. They could also choose between storing all data on the Ethereum mainnet or only the ZK proofs, with transaction data then stored off-chain by a trusted party. The interoperability between roll-ups within this new ecosystem would limit any risk of fragmentation of liquidity that could arise from different users using different chains.
In terms of governance, one proposal would include a 12-member ecosystem council with representatives from different members of the social layer, which is similar to the governance of existing individual roll-ups. Another proposed change is to give more voting power to those that lock up their tokens for longer periods. It is important that builders of potential financial applications understand how this can influence decision making and changes to the ecosystem.
Although blockchains have been around for nearly 15 years, these technologies are evolving continuously. The latest developments described in this report may overcome some of the hurdles that have so far constrained the adoption of public blockchains within the traditional financial system, particularly by rated issuers. These developments attempt to address issues with scalability while preserving the benefits of security and decentralization, as well as potentially enabling privacy and identity verification solutions. The emergence of ecosystems of interoperable blockchains may also allow users to build to their own sweet spot in terms of the trade-offs between scalability, security and decentralization, and enable permissioned networks without fragmenting markets.
As regulatory frameworks emerge and market participants execute on current research and pilot projects, we expect that real use cases will emerge that demonstrate benefits in areas such as collateral mobility, intraday liquidity and reduced settlement risks. If successful test cases are accompanied with further developments supporting interoperability, network effects may then lead to the rapid adoption of tokenization of financial assets. That said, these are nascent technologies that will need to be battle tested to identify unforeseen vulnerabilities, and currently present identifiable risks and dependencies. Understanding and addressing these risks will be critical to developing robust market infrastructure and financial applications around public blockchains.
Ellen JensenLead Editor, TMT
Denise GrazetteSeniorDesigner
Rameez AliDesign Manager
Joseph William ReyesDesigner
Block finality. The completion of the consensus mechanism. A block becomes immutable upon finality.Consensus mechanism. The mechanism through which participants in a blockchain network confirm the validity of a proposed block.Client software. The software packages that each validator node is running to execute transactions, validate the proposed block and send attestations of its validity. Different software packages are built by different companies, to the same specification, but using different coding languages and structures.Layer 1 blockchain. A base-layer blockchain network.Layer 2 roll-up. A blockchain network built on top of a layer 1 blockchain that aims to add functionality and speed.Node. One of several dedicated computational engines, stores of memory and broadcasting sites on a distributed ledger technology network.Reorg attack. An attack on a blockchain network that seeks to modify the content or ordering of previous blocks. Such attacks are described as short range if they target recent blocks or long-range if they target blocks much earlier in the chain.Slashing mechanism. A feature of a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism that penalizes validators by reducing (slashing) the value of their stake if they are inactive or behave badly, for example by attesting to the validity of invalid blocks.Staking. The process of committing digital assets to a protocol on a distributed ledger technology network to either actively or passively participate in return for rewards.Validator. A node in a blockchain network that executes transactions, validates the proposed block and sends attestations of its validity.Zero-day event.An attack on a blockchain or protocol that exploits a previously unknown vulnerability.Zero-knowledge proof. A cryptographic technique that verifies a statement is true without revealing the statements contents. In a blockchain context, this has applications in enhancing scalability as well as privacy and regulatory compliance.
Read more:
$KIZUNA Breaks Ground as First-Ever Token Made by Decentralized AI – Yahoo Finance
$KIZUNA
COLUMBUS-OHIO, Oct. 10, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The crypto community has recently witnessed the groundbreaking emergence of $KIZUNA, an Ethereum token claiming the distinctive accolade of being the first of its kind to be conceived from decentralized AI, namely Bittensor $TAO.
This innovation not only introduces a pioneering token but also signals the intersection of a proven philosophy, a decentralized ethos, and a palpable mission.
Decentralized AI Meets Decentralized Philosophy
Mysterious $SHIB founder Ryoshi proved that applying specific principles of decentralization can lead to gigantic success. This was evident with the original decentralized experiment $SHIB that reached an ATH $40Bn market cap. An astonishing feat.
$KIZUNAis also a decentralized experiment that takes these principles even further.
Bittensor $TAO is a decentralized AI network that incentivizes intelligence using Bitcoins consensus. The Ryoshi archives, accessible on Shiba Inus official website, were streamed into https://bitapai.io a chat prompt built on top of Bittensor. Everything about Kizuna Token was generated including name, logo, website, manifesto and the ERC-20 smart contract. This medium post demonstrates this process in full: https://medium.com/@kizunatoken/kizuna-decentralization-reborn-c8a0adb17a90
The decentralized principles written by Ryoshi like self-accountability, no single point of failure and spontaneous community building could be a harmonious match with decentralized AI; both reflect shared responsibility for success.
$KIZUNA Vision
Peeling back its layers, the heart of KIZUNA reveals a simple yet profound mission: championing a world where the future of AI is safeguarded for the betterment of humanity. Its a beacon for a potential future where the embrace of decentralization cuts across industries and hidden centralized control fades into obsolescence.
The KIZUNA manifesto, also generated by the Bittensor chat prompt, reflects this vision in tangible detail. Read it here: https://pastebin.com/srUxqaxd
Story continues
In the Japanese language, 'Kizuna' signifies bonds or connections, an apt representation of the underlying ethos of this novel token. KIZUNA seeks not just to be another player in the crypto market but aims to integrate the philosophy of interconnectedness, togetherness, and mutual respect into the very fabric of our digital lives.
The core mission pivots around the concept that as technology progresses, it shouldn't alienate but bind us closer, making our digital interactions more human, accountable, and transparent. This is especially paramount in an age where AI, often perceived as cold and impersonal, is poised to play an increasingly significant role in various sectors.
With decentralization at its crux, KIZUNA is championing an AI future where power isn't concentrated but is disseminated among its community. It urges individuals and organizations to adopt 'Kizuna' principles of togetherness, responsibility, and mutual growth. The overarching aim is not just to create a decentralized AI system but to foster a digital environment where each participant, whether human or machine, acts with integrity, accountability, and a sense of collective purpose.
By integrating decentralized AI into our daily digital interactions, KIZUNA envisions a future where technology doesn't dictate terms but collaborates, where AI solutions are not top-down impositions but emerge from communal discussions and shared visions.
For those keen to delve deeper into this innovation in decentralization, KIZUNA promises to be a beacon worth observing.
For further insights, refer to:
Website: https://kizunatoken.ioTwitter(X): https://x.com/KizunaTokenTelegram: https://t.me/KizunaOfficialMedium: https://kizunatoken.medium.comCoinmarketcap: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/kizuna/Coingecko: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/kizuna
Disclaimer: The information provided in this press release is not a solicitation for investment, or intended as investment advice, financial advice, or trading advice. It is strongly recommended that you practice due diligence (including consultation with a professional financial advisor) before investing in or trading securities and cryptocurrency.
Visit link:
$KIZUNA Breaks Ground as First-Ever Token Made by Decentralized AI - Yahoo Finance
What the Nordics Can Teach California About Sector Bargaining – People’s Policy Project
A regime of centralized, coordinated bargaining is emerging in California. Through a series of legislative measures, California is shifting toward a bargaining system widely recognized as the gold standard for workers. As California implements these new bargaining structures, questions about their execution and ultimate fate will grow in relevance. Insights into these questions can be gained by examining the worlds best labor institutions: the Nordic Model.
Nordic labor market institutions set the global benchmark for excellence. Nordic countries have high wages, high employment rates, compressed wage differentials, and highly productive and innovative economies. These results are driven in large part by their highly organized workforce and sectoral bargaining.
Although many European countries use some form of sectoral bargaining, the Nordics have a unique approach to it that separates them from their European peers.
Across all Nordic countries, around 84 percent of the workforce is covered by a collective bargaining agreement, which is seven times higher than the US. Of the 11 countries with a supermajority of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), all 5 Nordic countries are represented, with Finland and Iceland topping the Nordic countries with 90 percent coverage.
The Nordics have the highest union membership rates and even higher collective-bargaining coverage rates. In Finland, Iceland, and to a lesser extent, Norway, union-employer CBAs are extended within the industry, either automatically or through state intervention. Denmark and Sweden lack this extension mechanism, but instead rely on their powerful unions to force nearly all industry employers to use the CBA.
In the Nordic Model, both labor and management participate as coordinated entities with clearly defined roles in the bargaining process. On the management side, employer associations are common, representing between 65%-80% of all employers in the Nordics. These groups negotiate with unions to set standards for almost all employers in their sectors. This level of coordination is matched on the labor side, with 50-90% of workers belonging to a union. For the Nordic countries that lack formal extensions of CBAs throughout the respective industries, this coordination ensures wide coverage of CBAs throughout each industry.
In the Nordic Model, sectoral bargaining is comprehensive, addressing not just wages but also work-life balance, benefits, vocational training, gender equality, and more. For example, the Swedish Livsmedelsarbetarefrbundet, Livs (The Food Workers Union) boasts about its collectively bargained contract containing so much more than pay and reasonable work hours. The contract also covers vacation, overtime, odd-hours pay, pensions, unemployment, and various types of insurance. While the precise scope of these contracts varies by sector and country, they universally adhere to the principle of comprehensiveness.
Since the 1980s, the Nordicslike the rest of Europehave experienced some form of decentralization of their bargaining regimes. Decentralization can mean moving from peak level (economy-wide) coordinated bargaining down to sector level or from sector level to firm level. For the Nordics, decentralization has been organized within the overall sectoral bargaining structure, allowing the sectoral agreements to be floors or frameworks for firm-level bargaining structures to fill in the details or to expand upon.
Since 2019, under the Newsom Administration, California has gradually moved toward coordinated, sectoral bargaining through four bills and one budget action.
The most high-profile move is in the fast food industry. Through the efforts of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which in 2019 began emphasizing sectoral bargaining nationally via its Union 4 All campaign, and the broader CA labor movement, AB-257 was signed into law in 2021.
Known as the FAST Recovery Act, this bill would establish a statewide Fast Food Council, composed of four representatives for labor, four for management, and one independent representative of the public. The Council is tasked with negotiating statewide standards for fast-food workers wages and working conditions. However, the Council is not allowed to bargain over benefits, including paid-time off. Although organized opposition from the restaurant industry had postponed the laws implementation pending a 2024 referendum, a recent legislative compromise through AB-1228 ensures that a modified version will take effect in 2024. This agreement includes raising the minimum wage for fast food workers to $20 in 2024 (statewide minimum wage law for all workers will be $16/hr that year).
The fast food industry is not alone in moving towards more centralized, coordinated bargaining. Back in 2019, SEIU joined with AFSCME to push CA into enacting AB-378, the Childcare Providers Act, which allows family child care providers to unionize. This law permits providers, otherwise exempt from the National Labor Relations Act, to collectively bargain with the state. After this law passed, 40,000 family child care providers in California chose to join the Child Care Providers United (CCPU) union. Their first two contracts, in 2021 and 2023, had increased reimbursement rates, improvements to payment procedures, and investments in retirement, health care, and training.
A similar model is being pushed to be extended for In-Home Support Service (IHSS) workers. Over half-a-million IHSS workers provide support services to aged, blind, and disabled workers in CA. These critical IHSS workers are severely underpaid and are forced to bargain with local, private, nonprofit agencies, which themselves receive funds through county programs. This highly decentralized, disorganized, and underfunded process leaves the average IHSS worker making only around $16.50/hr, with major differences in standards from agency to agency. AB-1672, which passed the Assembly in 2023 and is on hold until 2024, aims to improve this system by making the state the employer and by establishing a statewide bargaining process.
Another industry gaining the attention of the state is the health care sector. Through SB-525, awaiting a decision by Governor Newsom, the state would establish minimum wage schedules well-above the state minimum. Health care workers, depending on the specific nature of their employer, would see their minimum wages increase to $21/hr in 2024, and would reach $25/hr by as early 2026 or as late as 2033.
The broadest, but also least directed and sustained example of moving towards sectoral bargaining in California was in the recently-signed 2023-24 Budget Act (AB-102). Without much fanfare, the budget allocated $3m to the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), which has the authority to set wages and working conditions for specific industries. Even though the IWC has existed for 110 years, its been denied any funds to operate for the past two decades. Despite this, it still has 17 wage orders for different industries currently in effect.
Thus, its budget revival marked potential for new actions, though its directive was temporary, limited in reach, and unspecific. The Budget Bill directed the IWC to begin operations in 2024 and cease operations 10 months laterwith priority for industries with 10 percent of workers below the federal poverty line. This broad-based momentum towards sectoral bargaining was fleeting: the September 2023 Fast Food Council compromise was attached to SB-105, which defunded the IWC once again.
This movement in California is promising, but is far from what is seen in the Nordics. As of now, the Fast Food Council only has operational authority for 5 years. Only four industries have any specific coverage, and in one of them, health care workers, the scope of content is limited to the minimum wage, and theres no ongoing structure for new negotiations. To more align with the Nordic Model, all industries in California would need permanent bargaining structures, with coordinated negotiations handled by representatives for both workers and management, and comprehensive issue coverage. Given lower levels of union density and employer associations, California should consider automatic extensions of sectoral agreements to nonparticipants. The existence of the IWC, while once again defunded, does provide a formal entry point for organizers to push for full sectoral bargaining.
Nick Warino is a researcher for SEIU Local 1021, though everything above is based on his own research and views, and does not represent SEIU.
See more here:
What the Nordics Can Teach California About Sector Bargaining - People's Policy Project
This wallet management system could redefine payments at the … – Cointelegraph
It can be challenging for newcomers to explore the crypto and Web3 world, and the gap between traditional finance and crypto makes matters worse. This wallet management solution addresses these challenges by simplifying crypto interactions.
Web3 can empower communities and individuals through the utilization of blockchain infrastructures and trustless systems. However, this emerging ecosystem presents many challenges due to its complex nature and the division between the Web3 space and traditional financial systems.
The decentralization and processes associated with digital currencies can be less familiar to those accustomed to traditional banking, with its concepts and onboarding steps often posing adoption hurdles. This challenge is heightened by the disjointed infrastructure between bank accounts and crypto wallets, resulting in intricate and cumbersome transfers across these ecosystems.
Digital assets offer a potential solution to key challenges in traditional finance (TradFi), particularly those tied to financial and demographic limitations. Yet, engaging in crypto transactions demands a certain level of specialized knowledge that may not always be readily available to individuals less familiar with the technology. While there exist trustworthy entry points to the world of crypto, primarily in the form of stablecoin-based on-ramps and off-ramps, these avenues often come with their own set of complexities and restrictions.
Navigating the intricacies of the crypto world frequently involves juggling numerous wallets, diverse blockchain networks, and a myriad of crypto assets. Unfortunately, the lack of user-friendly interfaces and applications acts as a barrier, impeding the average user from fully harnessing the expansive opportunities of decentralization.
Many people find it hard to bridge the gap between TradFi and the complexities inherent in the crypto space. One solution is a user-friendly digital wallet that comes with a built-in ID system. This setup helps blend the best of both worlds.
An all-in-one wallet simplifies transactions and makes crypto feel more familiar. It offers an easy-to-use design, safe ID checks, and connects different crypto networks smoothly. Users can jump between various cryptocurrencies without the usual headaches, all the while managing their funds effectively.
Rising alternative to neobanks, XGo, provides a convenient way for users to manage multiple wallets, transact with each other, and access services across the wider crypto ecosystem and beyond. XGos flagship offering, XGo ID was created with the intention to replace a bank account number (IBAN) in the crypto world, which is being referred to as a CBAN (Crypto Bank Account Number).
In a recent X Space hosted by Cointelegraph, Josh Cowell, Head of Product at XGo ID, emphasized the power of this innovation:
"As we aim to simplify the crypto landscape and make it more accessible, XGo ID offers an all-in-one solution that can redefine how users transact and manage their crypto finances in today's digital era. It eliminates the need for users to juggle multiple wallets and offers a unified wallet management system, making crypto transactions as easy as sending a text message. With XGo ID, we're not just bridging the gap; we're building a bridge for mass adoption at the intersection of TradFi and crypto."
With XGo ID, users get to select a single, personalized, and easy-to-remember handle for all their crypto needs. Moreover, by using the XGo app, users are able to bind their existing wallet addresses such as their Metamask to their claimed XGo ID, adding an extra layer of convenience; manage all wallets in one place.
If no existing addresses are bound, XGo can provide custodial addresses to each XGo ID for free.
Source: XGo
Some of the key aspects that may help XGos flagship product accelerate Web3 adoption include:
XGo ID addresses the pain points of fragmentation between traditional finance and crypto as well as the cumbersome processes within Web3 itself. It is designed to enable the use of Web3 technology by drawing upon familiar behavior patterns of Web2 applications.
By improving accessibility, user experience and interoperability within blockchain and crypto, XGo ID is poised to redefine how users transact and manage their crypto finances in todays digital era.
Disclaimer. Cointelegraph does not endorse any content or product on this page. While we aim at providing you with all important information that we could obtain in this sponsored article, readers should do their own research before taking any actions related to the company and carry full responsibility for their decisions, nor can this article be considered as investment advice.
Read more here:
This wallet management system could redefine payments at the ... - Cointelegraph
Cushman & Wakefield Arranges Sale of 801 Brickell Office Tower … – Cushman & Wakefield
MIAMI, October 06, 2023 Cushman & Wakefield has arranged the sale of 801 Brickell, a 415,000-square-foot landmark trophy office tower at the center of Miamis Brickell financial district.
Dominic Montazemi, Mike Davis, Rick Brugge, Rick Colon, and Miguel Alcivarof Cushman & Wakefield represented the seller, Nuveen Real Estate, in the transaction. The office tower was acquired by Monarch Alternative Capital and Tourmaline Capital Partners.
801 Brickell is an exciting opportunity to acquire one of the top office properties in what is arguably the countrys best office market right now, said Montazemi, Executive Managing Director at Cushman & Wakefield. As Miami, and especially the Brickell submarket, continues to evolve and grow, 801 Brickell offers a myriad of opportunities for additional value creation, with the immediate upside of lease-up of the currently available shell and spec spaces."
At 92% leased, 801 Brickell offers its blue-chip tenant roster a newly renovated lobby, state-of-the-art amenity floor with a fitness and conference center, and floor-to-ceiling windows with unobstructed views of Biscayne Bay. Prominently located at the main-and-main intersection of Brickell Avenue and SE 8th Street, the iconic SOM-designed tower offers immediate access to major transportation arteries and a plethora of residential options, public transit and world-class lifestyle amenities. All are within a short walking distance from the tower which is in the heart of Brickells live-work-play environment that has made it one of the nations top-performing office submarkets.
Since being acquired by Nuveen in 2002, 801 Brickell has maintained its preeminent position in the market. Through our proactive stewardship, we have strived to continually adapt to and thoughtfully elevate the tenant experience, transforming Brickell into one of the most dynamic urban office submarkets in the nation, said Charles Russo, Senior Director, Head of Southeast Workplace Sector at Nuveen, who is a tenant in the building.
Russo added, In 2017, Nuveen implemented a decentralization strategy, opening offices throughout the globe, including in Miami, to be closer to key market participants and portfolio investments to drive outperformance. Earlier this year, we relocated the Miami regional office to 801 Brickell. Since late 2018, in conjunction with the onsite Colliers leasing team, we have driven rental rates from the mid $50s to $120 per square foot, renovated and repositioned the asset and demonstrated the outcomes possible with this boots-on-the-ground approach.
Among the many notable value enhancements at 801 Brickell was the creative activation of underutilized ground floor interior space into the award-winning Komodo Miami, a three-story indoor/ outdoor high-end Pan-Asian restaurant, which remains one of the top performing restaurants in the nation.
Early in the pandemic, despite uncertainty around the future of office, Nuveen forged ahead with its major $30 million tenant-centered capital investment program at 801 Brickell, positioning the boutique building to capture local and new-to-market corporate flight to quality, and to leverage the extremely favorable office leasing dynamics in the Brickell submarket. This allowed them to establish record benchmark rental rates for best-in-class office. Twenty-five leases totaling 230,00 square feet have been executed by Nuveen since the pandemic, averaging an increase of 38% versus pre-pandemic rental rates and demonstrating the continued robust tenant demand for highly amenitized buildings, connected to sought-after locations for companies returning to the office.
The buyer, Monarch Alternative Capital and Tourmaline Capital Partners, recognized the generational opportunity to acquire an institutionally owned and maintained trophy tower at the epicenter of Miamis vibrant CBD with rental rate growth expected to continue in a more normalized capital markets environment.
Excerpt from:
Cushman & Wakefield Arranges Sale of 801 Brickell Office Tower ... - Cushman & Wakefield