On Inflation and Privacy (2022)
Blockchain based digital assets can potentially serve as value protection, safety, and security in a world where western central banks and governmental institutions have diminished in effectiveness. Over the last half-century, these elite-led institutions have failed us in two ways. The destruction of nation-state fiat currency via monetary debasement and runaway inflation. The pernicious erosion of private freedom via albeit well-intentioned financial technology regulation. 1. Runaway inflat...
How to Land a Product Job at a Tech Company (2020)
IntroductionMost guides provide theoretical and abstract advice. The few practical guides out there are either outdated or ridiculously over-priced. I tried to make this guide as practical as possible. Most books and courses focus on the interview stage, which I have covered in this guide. However, I also spend a lot of time talking about the other 60%: finding the right company, finding the right role, getting a referral, and what to do between interview stages. These things are not entirely...
On The Nature of Genetic Editing (2019)
Genetic editing is a topic that has come under major scrutiny recently. About a month ago, a Chinese scientist reported that he had created the world’s first genetically edited baby using the “CRISPR” (1) technology. Various news and media companies have been focusing on this issue from unidimensional perspectives. I believe a more thorough, inter-disciplinary, PPE (philosophy, politics, economics) style analysis of this topic is necessary to understand the importance and the deeper implicati...
I write about technology history, philosophy, and economics.
On Inflation and Privacy (2022)
Blockchain based digital assets can potentially serve as value protection, safety, and security in a world where western central banks and governmental institutions have diminished in effectiveness. Over the last half-century, these elite-led institutions have failed us in two ways. The destruction of nation-state fiat currency via monetary debasement and runaway inflation. The pernicious erosion of private freedom via albeit well-intentioned financial technology regulation. 1. Runaway inflat...
How to Land a Product Job at a Tech Company (2020)
IntroductionMost guides provide theoretical and abstract advice. The few practical guides out there are either outdated or ridiculously over-priced. I tried to make this guide as practical as possible. Most books and courses focus on the interview stage, which I have covered in this guide. However, I also spend a lot of time talking about the other 60%: finding the right company, finding the right role, getting a referral, and what to do between interview stages. These things are not entirely...
On The Nature of Genetic Editing (2019)
Genetic editing is a topic that has come under major scrutiny recently. About a month ago, a Chinese scientist reported that he had created the world’s first genetically edited baby using the “CRISPR” (1) technology. Various news and media companies have been focusing on this issue from unidimensional perspectives. I believe a more thorough, inter-disciplinary, PPE (philosophy, politics, economics) style analysis of this topic is necessary to understand the importance and the deeper implicati...
I write about technology history, philosophy, and economics.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Subscribe to Prithvir
Subscribe to Prithvir
<100 subscribers
<100 subscribers
Some believe that the application of blockchain and cryptoeconomics to all facets on technology is as inexorable as the increasing entropy in a closed loop system. This is probably true in the extreme long term. However, in the short to medium term, applying cryptoeconomics to an existing technology company without assiduously analyzing all possible scenarios could result in an instantiation of Braess’s Paradox.
In 1969, a German mathematician named Dietrich Braess discovered that adding one or more roads to a network can counterintuitively increase the congestion and slow the flow of traffic. He used rigorous mathematics to prove this theory. Practical examples of Braess’s Paradox can be seen in Times Square. In fact, this theory is extensible to completely unrelated topics like the tension force in springs and competitive sporting events like the Olympics (Roughgarden, 5).
So how does this apply to fintech? If the designer of the game (entrepreneur) doesn't consider that players of the game are strictly selfish and strategic, mayhem can ensue. Despite the designers’ good intentions, a Nash Equilibrium in which all parties are monotonically worse off could result. The burden lies on the system designer (founder / entrepreneur) to anticipate strategic behavior, not on the participants to behave against their own interests.
For example, Facebook, or shall I say Meta, has received considerable excoriation from the public for its crypto project Diem / Libra. Zuckerberg and his advisors failed to consider Braess’s Paradox. Simply adding a new road to the Facebook network was a misstep and backfired. Similarly, other companies trying to embrace cryptoeconomics should meticulously consider and anticipate all stakeholder’s strictly selfish strategic incentives and resultant behavior. Few organizations have done this exceptionally. Classic examples are MakerDAO, Uniswap, AAVE, Compound, etc. These organizations welcomed Byzantine and adversarial actors to their ecosystems. Their automated economic incentives were set up to make the price of anarchy as close to 1 as possible.
References:
No. 2814: BRAESS'S PARADOX by: Andrew Boyd, University of Houston, https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2814.htm
Twenty Lectures on Algorithmic Game Theory by Tim Roughgarden, Stanford University
Some believe that the application of blockchain and cryptoeconomics to all facets on technology is as inexorable as the increasing entropy in a closed loop system. This is probably true in the extreme long term. However, in the short to medium term, applying cryptoeconomics to an existing technology company without assiduously analyzing all possible scenarios could result in an instantiation of Braess’s Paradox.
In 1969, a German mathematician named Dietrich Braess discovered that adding one or more roads to a network can counterintuitively increase the congestion and slow the flow of traffic. He used rigorous mathematics to prove this theory. Practical examples of Braess’s Paradox can be seen in Times Square. In fact, this theory is extensible to completely unrelated topics like the tension force in springs and competitive sporting events like the Olympics (Roughgarden, 5).
So how does this apply to fintech? If the designer of the game (entrepreneur) doesn't consider that players of the game are strictly selfish and strategic, mayhem can ensue. Despite the designers’ good intentions, a Nash Equilibrium in which all parties are monotonically worse off could result. The burden lies on the system designer (founder / entrepreneur) to anticipate strategic behavior, not on the participants to behave against their own interests.
For example, Facebook, or shall I say Meta, has received considerable excoriation from the public for its crypto project Diem / Libra. Zuckerberg and his advisors failed to consider Braess’s Paradox. Simply adding a new road to the Facebook network was a misstep and backfired. Similarly, other companies trying to embrace cryptoeconomics should meticulously consider and anticipate all stakeholder’s strictly selfish strategic incentives and resultant behavior. Few organizations have done this exceptionally. Classic examples are MakerDAO, Uniswap, AAVE, Compound, etc. These organizations welcomed Byzantine and adversarial actors to their ecosystems. Their automated economic incentives were set up to make the price of anarchy as close to 1 as possible.
References:
No. 2814: BRAESS'S PARADOX by: Andrew Boyd, University of Houston, https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2814.htm
Twenty Lectures on Algorithmic Game Theory by Tim Roughgarden, Stanford University
No activity yet