Marc Hochstein is the managing editor of CoinDesk and a former editor-in-chief of American Banker.Â
The following article originally appeared in CoinDesk Weekly, a custom-curated newsletter delivered every Sunday exclusively to our subscribers.
Last month I had the plum assignment of interviewing Naval Ravikant for CoinDeskâs Most Influential in Blockchain 2017 series. During our conversation, the AngelList co-founder shared an insight that I just couldnât fit into the profile, but it was pretty mind-blowing, so Iâm going to lay it on you here.
Stepping back, for the last few years Iâve watched the cryptocurrency communityâs efforts to disrupt finance and, in parallel, the self-sovereign identity movementâs attempt to decentralize control of personal data.
By studying the former, Iâve learned the importance of censorship-resistance â the inability of a third party to veto a transaction between peers. From the latter Iâve become familiar with the concept of data portability: the notion that consumers should be able to easily and securely transfer their records from one service to another â be it a bank, a doctorâs office or a social media platform â the way they can port their mobile number when they get a new phone.
What Ravikant helped me to grok is that these two ideas are tightly related â and so the fact that both digital currency and digital identity projects are employing distributed ledgers is more than coincidence or fashion.
Because you donât use a blockchain unless you really need it.
Despite some of the hype, blockchains are âincredibly inefficient,â Ravikant said. âItâs worth paying the cost when you need the decentralization, but itâs not when you donât.â
Most CoinDesk readers are probably familiar with the usefulness of decentralization in a monetary context (and if youâre not, take a look at recent articles about cryptocurrency adoption in Iran, Venezuela, Russia and, ahem, the alt-right). The neutrality, censorship-resistance and openness of a permissionless network mean it will attract the odious along with the oppressed, and the software doesnât decide which is which.
But why is decentralization worthwhile in the data use case?
âToday, every piece of content and media you have is living somewhere owned by somebody,â Ravikant explained. âYour data is inside Facebook, your photos are inside a Google silo or an Apple silo.â
Then the conversation took a turn that I have to admit made me roll my eyes at first.
âIf someone creates a new Pokemon card game or a Magic the Gathering card gameâ online, he continued (cue my eye-roll), the characters are âliving and owned by a certain company in a certain format. You canât just go and reuse those assets.â
This is why CryptoKitties, the app running atop ethereum that allows users to buy, collect, sell and âbreedâ unique digital pets, is more than just a goof. Although itâs not a fully decentralized app, Ravikant said, it offers a glimmer of hope for such an innovation.
âThose assets are on the blockchain and you own that kitty and anyone can show up and remix that asset,â Ravikant said. âThey could put your CryptoKitty into a different kind of game,â say a fighting game.
Yeah, I still thought, so what? But then Ravikant zoomed out the lens and talked about the broad implications of this seemingly trivial example.
âAssets that normally would have been in a silo are, in a sense, censorship-resistant to developers,â Ravikant said. âNew developers come along and as long as you, the user, agree to share your content, they can reuse your content to give you new applications.â
Hence the potential of a distributed database. âImagine if every mobile app shared the same database underneath, or had access to the same data, what they could do,â Ravikant said.
And then he tied it all together.
âAll your data today is censored in terms of what boundaries it can cross and what applications it can live in,â he said. âThese silos are a form of censorship.â
Whoa.
To be sure, Ravikant has skin in the game here (or, if you prefer to think of it this way, heâs talking his book) â he was an early investor in Blockstack, a startup trying to build a new decentralized internet where users control their data. Blockstack also used CoinList, the platform Ravikant founded and spun out from AngelList, to conduct its token sale last year.
And unlike digital cash, identity is not yet a clear-cut, proven use case for blockchains. You can read some skeptical takes on the matter from some of the smartest members of the identerati here, here and here
Some even question the need for decentralization in this context.
âLarge services that control large portions of a market gain power over individuals, but large businesses tend to stay in business longer and have more resources in case users have problems,â noted a report last year from the blockchain and smart contracts discussion group of the Kantara Initiative, an identity trade group.
âFurther, there is a long tradition of innovation in client-side applications and centralized services meant to be employed by individuals for the purpose of their own empowerment,â the report continued, citing PGP encryption and ad blockers as examples.
Then again, how many people do you know outside of tech circles who use PGP, or even know what it is? Heck, how many techies you know use it?
Perhaps this is revealed preference, and most people just donât care about autonomy â but wouldnât they, if they took a second to think it through?
Clearly, the cause of empowering individuals in a digital world has a long way to go, and now is hardly the time for complacency. Which is why Ravikantâs vision is so captivating.
âWeâre going to see a giant remixing of the internet as all the data becomes unshackled from the silo that itâs in,â he told me. In the future, he concluded, âany data you own ⦠will be under your control and youâll be able to pass it into any app.â
I sure hope so.
Disclosure: CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which has an ownership stake in Blockstack.
Right choice image via Shutterstock