People sometimes ask me what my vision of DeFi is. This is a very tough question. DeFi is very messy with thousands of experiments happening. But high level, I think DeFi will go through 2 phases:

During the 1st phase (next 2-5 years), we'll continue to build games, casinos, and speculative products.
This sounds uninspiring. But it has two main important consequences.

1) This will ultimately lead to hundreds of millions of users to install wallets and get uncomfortable with the UX.

2) This will force the tech (especially scaling) to mature.
Once we've achieved these two goals, phase 2 begins. In phase 2, products that serve real economic activities / integrated with the real economy will be built and flourish.
Right now, such products barely exist. @terra_money comes to mind. But this is the kind of products that I really look forward to. They are more economically sustainable, and create more value.
In a way, we saw the same 2 phases with #BTC. In the early days, BTC was primarily a speculative asset. Nowadays, it still is, but it's transitioning into the 2nd phase where it's considered an 'emerging store of value'.
Matter of fact, arguably the most important component of capital markets is lending / credit / fixed income. In TradFi, this function is largely manipulated by central banks. In DeFi, it's driven by speculative activities aka phase 1.
In hindsight, phase 1 has also played a critical role in bootstrapping the lending / credit / fixed income market in DeFi. This will pave the way for phase 2.
Moreover, in phase 2, I don't expect DeFi to become a 'parallel financial system'. Instead, I expect traditional financial services companies to build their products in DeFi. Just like traditional media companies moved their business onto the Internet.
If 'the Internet' existed before 'finance' did, I think that's exactly how finance would've been built. On open protocols. Rather in wall gardens.

At the end of phase 2, the 'De' in DeFi will just be removed, and it will just be 'finance'.

More from Tech

On Wednesday, The New York Times published a blockbuster report on the failures of Facebook’s management team during the past three years. It's.... not flattering, to say the least. Here are six follow-up questions that merit more investigation. 1/

1) During the past year, most of the anger at Facebook has been directed at Mark Zuckerberg. The question now is whether Sheryl Sandberg, the executive charged with solving Facebook’s hardest problems, has caused a few too many of her own. 2/
https://t.co/DTsc3g0hQf


2) One of the juiciest sentences in @nytimes’ piece involves a research group called Definers Public Affairs, which Facebook hired to look into the funding of the company’s opposition. What other tech company was paying Definers to smear Apple? 3/ https://t.co/DTsc3g0hQf


3) The leadership of the Democratic Party has, generally, supported Facebook over the years. But as public opinion turns against the company, prominent Democrats have started to turn, too. What will that relationship look like now? 4/

4) According to the @nytimes, Facebook worked to paint its critics as anti-Semitic, while simultaneously working to spread the idea that George Soros was supporting its critics—a classic tactic of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. What exactly were they trying to do there? 5/
Thought I'd put a thread together of some resources & people I consider really valuable & insightful for anyone considering or just starting out on their @SorareHQ journey. It's by no means comprehensive, this community is super helpful so no offence to anyone I've missed off...

1) Get yourself on the official Sorare Discord group
https://t.co/1CWeyglJhu, the forum is always full of interesting debate. Got a question? Put it on the relevant thread & it's usually answered in minutes. This is also a great place to engage directly with the @SorareHQ team.

2) Bury your head in @HGLeitch's @SorareData & get to grips with all the collated information you have to hand FOR FREE! IMO it's vital for price-checking, scouting & S05 team building plus they are hosts to the forward thinking SO11 and SorareData Cups 🏆

3) Get on YouTube 📺, subscribe to @Qu_Tang_Clan's channel https://t.co/1ZxMsQR1kq & engross yourself in hours of Sorare tutorials & videos. There's a good crowd that log in to the live Gameweek shows where you get to see Quinny scratching his head/ beard over team selection.

4) Make sure to follow & give a listen to the @Sorare_Podcast on the streaming service of your choice 🔊, weekly shows are always insightful with great guests. Worth listening to the old episodes too as there's loads of information you'll take from them.
So we had to develop technologies like this to barely manage control over limited areas in Iraq's few urban centers. Only ~8 in 100 Iraqi adults owns a personal vehicle. That rate is > 1 car/adult in America yet I have never seen any doctrine paper or work of fiction address this


We've seen and struggled in civil conflicts with instant, local, universal, distributed communications (cell phone era, basically every conflict since 2000). We've seen and struggled in conflicts with instant, global, universal distributed communications (everything since 2011).

The world's most overfunded military and glow in the dark agencies struggle and largely fail to contain conflicts where fhe vast, vast majority of people are locked into a ~5mi radius of their home.

How can they possibly contain a conflict in a nation with universal car ownership and the most developed road network in the world? The average car can travel over 400 miles on one tank of gas, how can you contain the potential of that kind of mobility?

I think that's partially why the system was so freaked out by 1/6. Yes, most of it is histrionics but you don't decide to indefinitely turn your capital into the Baghdad Green Zone with fortifications and 25k troops over histrionics alone.

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.