Imagine being a German EV driver, not having to register with several of the 400+ EV charging operators just to get energy on the road, but paying with a “Watts” token accepted by any of them.

What would that mean to users and operators?
Thread 1/12👇

2/12 Based on IOTA “coloured coins”, “Watts” could be coupled to fiat currency or energy units (e.g. kW)

If "minted" by a consortium of EV charging operators, drivers would only have to register with ONE of them to get "Watts" but be able to use them to pay on ALL charging poles
3/12 "Watts" could additionally be sold in "gas" stations or supermarkets like todays' vouchers (cellphone credits, Google Play Store, PSN, Steam, etc).

Sold as vouchers for cash, buying "Watts" would even be (nearly) anonymous.
4/12 If “1 Watts” would be equivalent to 1 cent, minting tokens worth 5 billion € would cost the operators just ~1,500 €.

That’s "dirt cheap" in terms of infrastructure cost, especially when considering that “Watts” could be transferred infinitely w/o ever incurring any fees
5/12 A major headache when it comes to digital (cc) payments usually is "control".

With IOTA-based "coloured tokens", the operator consortium would stay in full control of their "Watts" token. In case they need more than 5 bn worth of them, they could create "Watts" v2 any time
6/12 All 400+ operators currently need to settle with customers individually, incl fees, with payments bouncing, sometimes even defaulting

With “Watts”, operators would only settle among themselves, reducing their overhead of conducting business by 99% + have no risk of defaults
7/12 Without the need to have customers pre-register in order to pre-approve their payment details, operators could ditch large parts of their IT infrastructure, have no payment processor fees and less headaches about security and GDPR - but greatly extend their customer base.
8/12 If “Watts” would be transferable, charging operators could extend their business model by becoming "markets" in allowing EV owners to sell energy to each other through their infrastructure - while retaining a small fee of course.

A “profit only”-opportunity for them.
9/12 EV owners could charge cheaply at night, while power plants produce excess energy, and sell for a small profit during the day, thus level peak energy consumption (& production), resulting in less waste, less cost and wear on the infrastructure.

Literally everybody would win
10/12 The benefits of interoperability aren't limited to EV charging. The Powerwall e.g. already enables transfers between EV and house.

How long until energy can be sold to neighbour houses or even strangers? Impossible based on paper-contracts, but easily enabled by “Watts”.
11/12 Here’s the kicker:

A “Watts” token, if created as "voucher for a redeemable unit", would not be different to any voucher topping up a cellphone, PSN credits, Steam, iTunes, etc.

So, “Watts” would most likely be perfectly legal - already under current legislation.
12/12 The opportunities posed by cheaply "minted", feelessly transferable, secure, „coloured tokens“ seem infinite.

They are only available as "alpha" version yet. But it seems not a question whether a use-case for them can be found, but rather 'when' the first one will emerge.

More from Tech

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.

You May Also Like