Bankless - A Short Story About Private Law | Peter Van Valkenburgh

Episode Date: November 27, 2024

The Director of Research at Coincenter, Peter Van Valkenburgh joins us for our final talk at the Bankless Summit with a story that hits close to home about privacy and surveillance. ------ 📣SPOTIFY PREMIUM RSS FEED | USE CODE: SPOTIFY24  https://bankless.cc/spotify-premium ------ BANKLESS SPONSOR TOOLS: 🐙KRAKEN | MOST-TRUSTED CRYPTO EXCHANGE https://k.xyz/bankless-pod-q2   ⁠ 🤖 dYdX | UNLIMITED LAUNCHING SOON https://bankless.cc/dYdXUnlimited   🗣️TOKU | CRYPTO EMPLOYMENT  https://bankless.cc/toku   🛞MANTLE | MODULAR LAYER 2 NETWORK https://bankless.cc/Mantle    🦄UNISWAP | BROWSER EXTENSION https://bankless.cc/uniswap  🪄 MAGIC EDEN | HOME OF WEB3 https://bankless.cc/MagicEden ------ ✨ Mint the episode on Zora ✨ https://zora.co/collect/zora:0x0c294913a7596b427add7dcbd6d7bbfc7338d53f/102?referrer=0x077Fe9e96Aa9b20Bd36F1C6290f54F8717C5674E  ------ TIMESTAMPS 00:00 Start 03:39 What Is This Talk About? 08:16 Lets Talk About Cars 12:46 The Stolen Bike 14:37 Surveillance 17:18 California 24:41 Supercharged Surveilance 27:48 What We Should Be Building ------ RESOURCES Peter - https://x.com/valkenburgh ------ Not financial or tax advice. See our investment disclosures here: https://www.bankless.com/disclosures ⁠  

Welcome to the final talk of the Bankless Summit, which was a series of talks from speakers around the Ethereum ecosystem, all presented at a one-day event hosted a day after DevCon called the Bankless Summit. Peter Van Valkenberg is perhaps one of the greatest speakers in the entire crypto industry. He works at Coin Center, defending our rights to hold crypto, have privacy, and retain all the cipherpunk values that spawned this industry. Peter's talk at DevCon, I also recommend watching just because Peter's talks are always so special. He gave a little short story. He gave a little short story. story allegory, a story about a town with houses and buildings made entirely of glass with nothing to stop anyone from seeing inside the houses. I'll let your imagination try and guess what that's a metaphor for. This talk that he gave at the Bankless Summit poses a potential inversion of that same metaphor, which leads Peter to argue why we need more of this thing that he calls private law. I hope you enjoy. Let's go ahead and get right into this talk from Peter. But first, a moment to talk about some of these fantastic sponsors that make the show possible. If you want a crypto trading experience backed by world-class security and award-winning support teams, then head over to Cracken,

one of the longest-standing and most secure crypto platforms in the world. Cracken is on a journey to build a more accessible, inclusive, and fair financial system, making it simple and secure for everyone, everywhere to trade crypto. Cracken's intuitive trading tools are designed to grow with you, empowering you to make your first or your hundredth trade in just a few clicks. And there's an award-winning client support team available 24-7 to help you along the way, along with a whole range of educational guides, articles, and videos. With products and features like Cracken Pro and Cracken NFT Marketplace and a seamless app to bring it all together, it's really the perfect place to get your complete crypto experience.

So check out the simple, secure, and powerful way for everyone to trade crypto, whether you're a complete beginner or a season pro. Go to crackin.com slash bank lists to see what crypto can be. Not investment advice, crypto trading involves risk of loss. Centralized finance held all the power. But now Defi gives it back to you. Enter the Unlimited Era with D-YDX Unlimited. featuring instant market listings where you can list and trade any market instantly with liquidity.

Experience trading like never before with all the trading tools you know and love all on chain. And then there's Megavolt, your gateway to automatic liquidity and yield. Just deposit some USC and start earning yield immediately. It's so simple and DYDX unlimited comes pack with so much more. Leverage, prediction market perpetual futures, instant deposits, and there's even a revamped trading rewards program to get rewarded for every time you make a trade. So go ahead and check out DYDX on Twitter at DYDX to get noticed. once D-Y-D-X unlimited launches.

Tired of juggling multiple wallets and websites just to navigate Web3, meet Magic Eden, the home of Web3. It is becoming a super dab where you can do everything cross-chain all in one place. They're solving Ux issues by building products across every chain ecosystem, swaps, borrowing and lending,

NFTs, perps, and more, all seamlessly cross-chain. Instead of hopping between countless sites and handling multiple wallets, just use Magic Eden. Save time and get to the meme-coining faster. Plus, the M-E-Token is coming out this quarter from the M.E. Foundation, if you've used any of their protocols like the

NFT platform, you can claim some. So check out Magic Eden today and watch them become a super dapp and the home of Web3 in real time. You can get there at Magic Eden.io to get started. Thank you. I'm a lawyer. I have notes and all this stuff here going on. Yeah. Okay. Oh, thank you. Thank you. And water. This is Lovely. Thank you, David. Thank you for having me. I hope this is interesting to you all. As I said, I am a lawyer, a very Washington, D.C. lawyer. So, of course, this talk has to open up with a disclaimer. But you're lucky. This is not my normal disclaimer. My normal disclaimer applies. I am a lawyer, but I'm not any of your lawyers. That's definitely true. Like, do not rely on anything I say. And if you get in trouble, you're on your own. It has nothing to do with me.

That's my normal disclaimer. The special disclaimer for this one is, This is also not part of my day job. My day job is CoinCenter. Show a hands if you know CoinCenter. Oh, that's really good. That makes me feel good. So CoinCenter is a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., and we've been advocating folks in D.C. in Congress and in the agencies and through the courts to understand this technology is better and to give them enough space, just a little opening to actually grow and build and make the world a better place. That's increasingly difficult because of issues like investor protection and securities laws and increasingly, increasingly difficult. because of issues like sanctions and North Korea usage of the chain or North Korea usage of things like tornado cash. So that's my day job. And we are suing the government, by the way. We're suing the Department of Treasury for its tornado cash sanctions. Thank you. Our claim is pretty simple, is that the statutes for sanctions laws are important. They're part of our national security. And Congress said, here, you have this power, president, to identify foreign persons and property who are, you know, enemies of the state.

and block Americans from interacting with those things. But Congress said that really clearly, and they said foreign persons or property. And an immutable smart contract, the tornado cash immutable pools, is neither a foreign person nor any foreign person's property. So if any of you, show up hands if you're American, or maybe you don't want to admit to it, if any of you donate to a coin center, an American nonprofit 501C4, and use the immutable pools in order to make that donation, private on chain, there's no foreign person involved. There's no foreign transaction nexus. This is not about national security. That's just about civil liberties. The statute should not empower treasury to block that transaction, and that's what we're fighting for. We have oral argument in that case this coming

Tuesday, so look forward to some new news on our appeal. This was a very long disclaimer. So let me get into the meat of my talk, because David, when he invited me, said, you can talk about anything you want. This is the bankless summit. We want it to be like podcasty and interesting. is I was like, oh, oh, okay, the guideline is interesting. Well, my idea of interesting is hopefully similar to your guys' idea of interesting, but it's a little weird, I got to admit. And so I was like, all right, well, interesting to me is something that someone's personally passionate about and maybe even angry about.

And, yeah, I could be passionate and angry about tornado cash for a whole half an hour, but I want to do something different. So this isn't a talk about privacy law. this is Peter, just as Peter, not Coin Center, talking about private law, like the civil court system, the Anglo-Saxon common law, and how we need to accelerate the private law. I actually want more lawsuits. I'm a lawsuit maxi. And that's going to sound crazy, but hopefully this talk will explain why. I'm seeing some nodding. This is a great audience. I hope you enjoy this. So David told me I could do my talk about anything. So what I decided to do was talk about seed oils, actually. Because seed oils, especially the long chain fatty acids here with a double carbon bond in the middle, it makes it kinky. They screw up our metabolism, right?

And they're in everything. They're in hamburgers. They're in things that look like whole foods, but actually they've got like canola oil in them. It's because of all the money from the corporations. And this guy, he's going to, he, just kidding. This stock is not about seed oils. Seed oils are actually bad, by the way, but the stock's not about seed oils. No, this talks about something else that makes me passionate and sometimes angry.

This talk is very personal. It's about my kids and where I live in Washington, D.C. So these two little adorable things are my two kids, and this is their bike or my bike. And, you know, I kind of agonized about this because I was like, hmm, I see people being afraid to talk about their kids in front of public audiences on the internet. and they, I see even on Instagram, pretty normy people, like, put these emojis in front of their kids' faces, because I guess, like, facial recognition, right, and personal privacy, and I get it, but, and we've got a lot of big problems there. But Jesus, like a couple of emojis is not going to fix that problem. And so actually, like, these are my kids. They're so cute. And you probably

notice that the background here is a city. It's a pretty dense area. I don't just live inside the Beltway. I live in the densest neighborhood in Washington, D.C., population density-wise. And it's nothing compared to, like, Bangkok, you know, or let alone Manhattan or Paris. But I'm determined to stay there in D.C. because I have to be in D.C. for my work for lobbying and bringing lawsuits. And I just really don't want to be that person who, in order to go get a beer and a burger and hang out with the neighbors who also have kids where I have to hop in a car and drive through two neighborhoods where I just pretend not to care about those people. I want to, like, meet my friends at the bar on the corner and meet more friends along the way,

because I'm kind of an introvert, believe it or not. I get these presentations, but, like, I need to be next to somebody to finally, like, intimately get to know them. I can't, if I was living in the suburbs and had to drive everywhere, I'd never see anyone, you know, I'd be too afraid to call them up and be like, hey, let's get a beer. And so I'm really committed to being in this neighborhood in D.C., but it's hard. You know, the schools aren't great. They're getting better. They're difficult.

The school closest to us is probably not great. So that's why I have that cargo bike is to take him to school. And is the crime problem real? Yeah, it's very real. And it's kind of getting worse sometimes. Like I said, nothing like Bangkok in my neighborhood, but still dense. And this is like, this is the bar we go to. I'm going to keep these smiley faces on the neighbor's kids because that's not my place to share them.

And we met because, you know, one of them works for the Federal Reserve. another is a contractor at Deloitte, and I'm a crazy crypto lobbyist. But we all have kids, and it makes us come together, and it makes us happy. And here she is drawing on the bar gave her the chalk. They're like, go ahead, scribble on the specials. Nobody cares. It's a fun bar. So she's mischievous like me. And because I live in the city, I hate cars. And I see cars as a symbol of something that went wrong technologically about 100 years ago that is a lesson for how we might go wrong for the next hundred years. This is pretty close to me. I won't tell you exactly where I live. My opsec is bad in this presentation, isn't it? This car flipped. These are the sidewalks I walk on with a 17-month-old who's

just kind of like starting to go like this. And so David said I could do this talk about anything. So actually, this talk is all about how cars are evil. We're just going to watch a bunch of not-just bikes videos. Any fans? It's just a great YouTube channel. You should watch it. No, I'm kidding. This is the second bad bait and switch joke. This talks not about cars. But in a way it is, because as I said, I really want to live in a city that's dense, interwoven, where I'm forced to be in touch with people all the time,

learn about their weird things and their cool things, and even have conflict with them and bump into them so we can talk about it and find a way forward together. I don't want to go off and be a mountain man in the wilderness to use Vitalik's term about people who are going to fully validate the chain on their own. I want to be a part of a society. And this is what I want to be a part of. Does anyone recognize this? This was the engraving cover of Hobbes's Leviathan, the great European political theorist. And Leviathons always talked about as this like monolith, this power,

this evil, evil government that we have to just submit to or die or be in the wilderness, nasty, brutish, and short, struggling for survival and unhappy. There's a way to read Hobbs that isn't like that, though, and I think it's actually what Hobbs meant. This guy, this powerful, king, he's not a dude. He's a dude of many dudes and dudets. Right? Like, this one here, this is a human. This could be me. And over here's Naraj at Coin Center. And like, over here's Amin Soleimani. And I'm like, I'm happy to be in the same dude as you because you're weird. And I like the ideas that I want to work together. So, like, this is what we need to enable to be able to prosper in a system of ordered liberty and move forward with our lives. And I'm worried that we're,

we're not preserving this. We're not living up to what Hobbs would have actually expected us as political theorists. We're going in two opposite directions away from this, towards an actual tyrant that isn't made up of the people, or towards a world where we're all alone in the wilderness, nasty, brutish, and short. So let me talk about cars just a little bit more, because I do think they're a good symbol. This is how most people take their kids to school, right? And you stick your kid in this car seat and look at him. Look at him. This poor guy. He's got like this great view of the sky. And he's going to sit there maybe in traffic for like 20, 30, 40 minutes.

And those minutes are so precious when you have a little kid. Their brains are just developed. They're learning how to interact with the world. And what are you showing them? You're showing them the sky. And they just kind of get teleported to their safe destination. They don't walk through the neighborhood. They just suddenly end up in the Montessori School.

And the Montessori School might be really good. But no wonder they grow up anxious. They're like, I don't know how to get from A to B. It's just magic. It happens. I'm in a glass-enclosed box, and then I'm in where I'm supposed to go. Like, they've got to bump into each other. The problem with bumping into each other, though, is it's scary as a parent.

Like, I really worry about my kid's safety when I take them out on a bike. They much prefer it. They love the fresh air. They love seeing the neighborhood. They love the wind on their face. They love me behind them with them in the bucket talking to them, because you can have a conversation. But I worry about cars. There's good bike paths, so it's reasonably safe.

I worry so much that I bought this 360-gusting. camera. Remember you have like an Insta 360 or something or the newer gopros? Lenses on both sides. They're great for like skiing and snowboarding and stuff. I want to mount it on my handlebars because then I can just have a document. It's like a dashboard cam, but it's all around me, have a record of people who mess with me as I drive. And that's kind of maybe a silly solution, but it made me feel a little better. I was like, okay, well, at least, you know, if somebody messes with me, I could, I don't know, start a website of like shaming people in D.C. for driving into the bike lane and messing with this bike full of adorable kids. What are you doing?

Well, that was going to be the next slide, was a video of me driving my kids to school, 360. It would have been really cool. It didn't happen because as I was writing this talk, this happened. This is like a weird, like cement wall in the back of my townhouse. It's like 10 feet tall. It's where I keep my bike in there and the door's locked. And that's my bike. And this guy is lifting it up out.

how he got in there, I'm not sure. I don't have footage of that. And it's like a 150-pound bike, by the way. That's why it wasn't chained up in there because I was like, who's going to lift this bike up over a 10-foot wall? Stupid of me in retrospect. I blame myself a lot for this, but the bike's gone. He disconnected the camera at this point because he probably saw it, and then I suspect he just threw it over the side of the wall, and that was the end of it. And you know, this is okay. The bike was insured. I'm lucky that I live in a civil society that's pretty good about this stuff. And, The only hard part was explaining to Ada, my daughter, like, oh, we can't go to school on the bike today. We have to drive because the bike needs to get fixed. I didn't want to have the conversation with her about scary people outside taking our things. Though I guess I'm going to have to have that conversation someday. I just don't know when. And, you know, the police didn't really help. This is my favorite scene in Big Lebowski where he wants to get his rug back, you know, because it tied the room together.

And the cops like, oh, yeah, we got a lot. of leads. We're going to have a team of, the crack team of people working on it, you know? And I don't blame the cops in my neighborhood. I like the cops in my neighborhood. They have bigger priorities than my cargo bike. Like, there's violent crime. So what was my response as a parent as a human being? I was like, more cameras. Because I didn't have enough angles to like ID the guy. This is just like an impulsive response. And you might have noticed the little nest watermark in the earlier surveillance footage. I was like, well, that's wrong. I know that's wrong because I'm just actually making myself more vulnerable with those cameras on a certain sense. Like, what if Ness

gets hacked? People are going to learn everything about me. So I built a whole system that I installed hurriedly before coming to Bangkok because I wanted to like get it working so I could spy on my house while I'm in Bangkok. And it's got, you know, power over Ethernet cameras. So they're all wired. They all go to a switch in my house that runs PF Sense routing. And they go to an NVR, a network video recorder. And it's all local. I got like 16 terabytes of storage. And it just rotates. It's about a month of capacity for two 4K video cameras, which is great. And I'm going to get more cameras. I'm a little crazy. I admit it. But like, this is cool. But as I found myself kind of impulsively doing this, how much time do I have? I tend to talk a lot. As I found myself like impulsively doing this,

I was like, this is wrong. This is not what a privacy and civil liberties advocate is supposed to be doing. What am I doing? I'm becoming my own worst enemy. Like, I'm the ubiquitous surveillance. I'm like Walter White breaking bad. I'm like, I am the danger now. And maybe that's true. Maybe I'm screwing up. I don't know. I'm not so egocentric to not entertain the possibility that I've become unhinged. So please, after the talk, tell me I've become unhinged if you think I've become unhinged. But the thing that's important to me about this is that it's mine, its cameras eye control. Because we have two paths forward in a world where there's ubiquitous surveillance, we can try and ban cameras and ban the state from using cameras

and ban each other from using cameras to reclaim the kind of like 18th century privacy that we maybe secretly want. And I do kind of want that. But good luck with that. Or we can admit that there are going to be cameras everywhere. And we should, as private individual citizens, race the state at having more surveillance that we control to leverage and show what we. We should, think is important about our lives, evidence of injustices, of good things, of bad things, of protest movements, of all this. Like, I should have a camera, just a 360 camera on me all the time, as long as I'm the only one with access to that data to just prove that if somebody messes me, be they the government, or be they a criminal, I have that evidence. Like, I think

that's the way forward. And to sort of wrap this into a philosophical framework, rather than just being about this guy whose bike got stolen, and then he gave a talk at bank. in Bangkok, which is true. This is what this talk is. But to put it in a philosophical framework, to elevate it a little bit, here's a way of thinking about it. I came across this article. I'm not endorsing this article per se. It's by a guy who's trying to explain why California liberalism is so weird. And why California, and this is like a topic de jure of podcasts, why California is having trouble, right? Why San Francisco has this bad ascendancy of crime and vagrancy and also potential economic consequences that are very, very bad, like the rising

housing prices and how it's all linked. But he's coming at it from a cultural perspective. Instead of coming at it from like real politic or something, he wants to make philosophical points. And I found this valuable because he identifies two avatars in cultural history of California that are useful and useful also in my talk. But useful to explain California liberalism because he doesn't use this phrase, but I think this is the most succinct phrase to explain his point. What you have in California are nimbie anarchists, which is freaking weird.

They're like, not in my backyard. I don't want the condo built next door. So nothing like Bangkok where it's just like, oh, I had this nice house, and now there's a monolith with weird people giving talks like this next to it. So it's nimbie. It's like, no, never change the neighborhood. But it's also anarchists.

Like if there's somebody doing drugs right next to the school, you're not going to call the cops on them. And that's a strange combination. It is. And Layton here says that it could be ascribed to the two founding populations of California, as in the founding of the American California, not older founding populations or immigrating populations. And so the two founding populations of American California predate the gold rush,

and they're New Englanders who were Puritans. And, you know, Puritans are pretty nimbly. Puritans are like the original NIMBY. They're like, oh, you want to dance? We're just going to have no dance in England for a while. Like, that's what Oliver Cromwell did. Like, not only must your house be painted the right color and have the right pickets, no dancing.

And then the other founding population was the Scotch Irish from the Appalachians. And these fine ladies and gentlemen are like the characters in Braveheart, you know, that when the English army is going by, they moon them. They're like the anarchist vigilante class that just want to be left a left, alone. And these are, in some ways, the nimbie anarchists of California. This is a great thesis. It's a little too cute, maybe, but I think it's very real. And what I found interesting about this dichotomy is it's not entirely, like, complete. And I don't think he would suggest it is. And maybe the answer from populations in history and cultures is that the thing in between the Puritans and the

Scottish Irish is actually the thing they were both running away from. It's the Anglo-Saxons. It's England, England. And that thing might be actually just really good as a middle way to have an ordered society that isn't totalitarian and top-down. Why do I think that? Because I'm a lawyer. And if you're an American lawyer, the thing that gets drilled into you is the Anglo-Saxon common law. Like, yeah, I do a lot of administrative law now, which is like, filing comments with the SEC, but most of my law school times was spent learning about property, torts, contracts, the things that are actually like all of your economic activities. All of those things, all of those economic activities are mediated internationally because it

got codified in the Uniform Commercial Code and other international documents. They're codified versions of holdings from the Anglo-Saxon common law that go back to the year 1,000. Like, there's a thousand years of legal history here to develop the concept of what it is to have liquidated damages attached to your contract. You know, and like that started with like, well, when we made this agreement for the sheep, you spit in your hand and then shook it. And everyone knows that when we spit in our hands and then shake, that means I get extra sheep, double sheep, if you break the agreement. Like, that probably was a thing. And it gradually grew into something we now soberly like call like liquidated damages. But like, like,

originally it was just organic practices bottom up and it became the law so you have this really rigorous system of norms and rules and laws that keep us together as a society but it didn't come from some sovereign it didn't come from some king who was just like this shall be the way now it's not the puritans nobody can dance and it's not the anarchists because it's not we'll retreat and just live alone no we're going to live together and we need a lot of very rich bottom up emergent norms and law to actually mediate that. Just to hit home on this point, because I'm going to take this opportunity to nerd out on the law some more. This is one of the earliest cases defining what it is to have an assault.

And this all ended up in the criminal law, but it used to be just a civil statute where you'd sue someone for assaulting you. I don't know enough about Old English to explain why the parties of this lawsuit are IDS at Ux versus WDS, but those are the parties. You see the date? We're at 1348, and I can cite this case in court. It has authority still, which is wild. So defendant went to the home of plaintiff at night to purchase wine, so it's a tavern. Upon finding the door to the tavern closed, defendant beat the door with a hatchet. Like, this person really wanted some freaking wine, right? The plaintiff stuck her head outside and told him to stop. At which point, defendants swung the hatchet toward plaintiff, but did not strike her. Very nice.

Plaintiff sued for assault. This is the case that is still identified for the premise that you should be able to sue someone for almost hitting you with an axe, but not making contact. Because that's what assault is in the law is creating the imminent fear of harm. Because just as we want to arrest people for harming people, we also don't want people going around being like, you know, because that's also bad for civilization. And what's interesting about this case is it's so early that there's no discussion of what's actually the most important about the criminal law of assault, which is the mental state

of the defendant. Like maybe this guy just was, he was banging on the wall with his axe, right? And then she opened the door and her head was there and he was like, oh, oh, I was just knocking on the door. Because if that's true, if that's what he was thinking, he didn't mean to scare her. and he's innocent of assault. But that rule about mental state would come about 200 years later.

So it was a little before his time, maybe. You know, poor WDS. And so what's amazing about the common law is it's this in-between. And what I want to talk about, just to close out, as a project for future research from brilliant people in the Ethereum community,

which I'm assuming you all are, because I think you probably all are, is we need to supercharge that middle way because we, God knows, we know that technology is supercharging the totalitarian nanny state. Technology is even supercharging to some extent the anarcho vigilante hiding in their bunker. You know, over here we've got ubiquitous surveillance, we've got all the armor of state control. Over here, we've got like personal desalination technology and Starlink and stuff like that. We really need technology that will supercharge the middle.

because that's what actually binds us together is a bunch of weirdo lawyers who are like, yeah, I'll represent your claim, let's go fight it out in court, it'll be fun. And not only should we fight it out in court, it'll be fun, it'll leave a record so that a thousand years from now someone can be like, ah,

when the Dow got hacked, this happened and this happened, and they decided this for that reason, that's why we still have this tradition of building Dow's this way, like this bad example. I hope people aren't still talking about the Dow hack in a thousand years,

but maybe they will be. And so how do we supercharge that? I think it's a really hard question. I think one is the ubiquitous surveillance point I was making earlier. We need more evidence collecting tech that is controlled and exclusively in the hands of individuals rather than the state. Ideally, it wouldn't be made by meta, like the Raybans here. We need trusted execution environments and zero knowledge proofs and personal data architecture that allows me to leverage things like AI to sift through masses of camera data,

find the thing that's relevant to me where I ran into someone and got hurt or otherwise learned a lesson, and then selectively share that information with somebody else, either just to make a point about how we should be as a society, or to take them to court and say, like, look, I have this one discrete piece of evidence. You can prove that it came from my device and the chain of evidence is good. But then what does that court look like? Because God knows the current legal system is incredibly slow and costly, Just to file our amicus brief in Roman Storm's case, I had to apply Prohocvice to appear in the Southern

District of New York. It's just a document that says, yes, I'm barred in Washington, D.C. I'd like to practice here in New York just for this one case. $400. It's just a document. I had to set up, you know, you set up your PACER account, everything you do. Even just reading a page of case law ends up costing you, like, $3 because they still charge like Xerox copies at PACER, the public records of our law. So that system is too slow and too costly. We need to make it cheaper. And if there's something that hopefully technology can do and do well is take arbitrarily complex systems that are nonetheless fundamentally important and reduce the barriers to entry for using those systems, make them more

appealing, available, affordable to the average person. And so we don't have to reinvent the wheel here, like private courts that happen with like arbitration, sometimes even binding arbitration, so they still happen in the shadow of the law. I'm not talking per se about like a network state here. The sovereigns are not going away. The big governments are not going away. But we can build a whole layer of peer-to-peer dispute resolution under them and only resort to the sovereign when that system fails, kind of like an L2, that's fine, and if something goes wrong, you have your fraud proof and you go back to the L1. That's what we should be building. And there's some, you know, I have to shout out to Claros, which is one of the early projects in this space that's attempting

to do this. I don't know a lot about them. And I haven't seen progress from them that makes me think that they've already cracked it, right? So, and there should be like 50 things on this slide. And they're the main one that I've found. We need these systems. of dispute resolution that are private, that are low-cost, that are accessible, that are technology-native. We should be building that. Now, the other thing that private arbitration and private law doesn't really solve is this. This quote is either from Marcus Aurelius or Aristotle, depending on who you're listening to, and maybe it's from neither, because who knows, poverty is the mother of crime. And so you might say, Peter, this is a ridiculous talk.

Your bike got stolen. You're not going to, like, bring them into some distributed justice court, to get your bike back. And there's a lot of truth to that, especially because the guy who's hard on his luck enough to pull a bike over a 10-foot concrete wall, he probably doesn't have, you know, many resources. He's probably poor. And that means society's already failed him,

which led to this problem. And me trying to go to the court to get, like, vengeance or to get paid the cost of the bike or to get the bike back if he hasn't sold it yet, good luck with that. Like, he might not even have the money. money to pay me. He's what we call on the law judgment proof. So we have the big problem here that we also need better social safety nets, better welfare systems. And the short point I want to make is

it's a bad idea for the tyrannical nanny state to be the source of the welfare system too, because the only way they're going to means test things and get an idea of who deserves a welfare payment is by learning all the intimate details of our lives. And that is just as dangerous as any other totalitarian state then if it falls into the wrong hands. So we need a peer-to-peer welfare system. I think we need a welfare system, though. I'm not an anarchist. I'm not an anarcho-vigilante who's like, I'll just live in my compound. Because that guy definitely shouldn't be in charge of welfare payments, because, well, he just wants to protect his stuff and would happily shoot someone who shows up in front of his walled compound in the apocalypse of the future, right? I want the middle. Build me the

middle, please. That's what this talk is about. And, you know, if we take down my metaphors, Because they're just avatars. If we stop talking about the Puritans, the totalitarian nanny state on one side, and the Scotch-Irish, the anarcho-bilantes on the other side, they're actually the same person. It's a flat circle.

And that flat circle is embodied by the car. So if you think about the little kid in the car, they're alienated, right? Why are they alienated? Two reasons. One, their parents made the kind of anarcho-loner choice to choose as their default mode of transportation, this steel and glass cage

that travels at 60 miles per hour through neighborhoods instead of being social. And they're strapped to a chair that's facing the wrong direction and can't even see where they're going because of the nanny state. It's a little bit of both. And so I want to leave you,

because I think I got one minute left. Man, I did not expect a time that that well. It's got lucky. I want to leave you with a quote that lives rent-free in my head by Schopenhauer. It's called the porcupines dilemma, sometimes the hedgehog's dilemma, because we can't tell these animals apart.

One cold winter's day, a number of porcupines huddled together quite closely in order through their mutual warmth to prevent themselves from being frozen, but they soon felt the effect of their quills on one another, which made them, ouch, move apart. Now, when the need for warmth once more

brought them together, the drawback of the quills, Quills was repeated, ouch, so they were tossed between two evils until they discovered the proper distance from which they could best tolerate one another. Thus, the need for society, which springs from the emptiness and monotony of men's lives,

drives them together. But there are many unpleasant and repulsive qualities and insufferable drawbacks once more drive them apart. And the mean distance which they finally discover and which enables them to endure being together. together is politeness and good manners. Thank you.

Peter. Launching a token, don't let complex legal and tax issues slow you down. Toku provides specialized support to optimize your launch and ensure that you as a founder and your team and your investors get the most tax-efficient outcomes. The Toku team understands the crypto space inside and out and will ensure your token launch is fully compliant while maximizing tax efficiency.

Toku can connect you with the best attorneys if you need them to make sure that you have the best advice, Toku can help to optimize your taxes, so you pay the least possible amount of taxes while still maintaining legal compliance. With Toku's guidance, you can concentrate on building your company while Toku handles the logistics. Token launches don't have to be complicated. Talk to Toku today to get a free initial token valuation. New projects are coming online to the Mantle Layer 2 every single week. Why is this happening? Maybe it's because Mantle has been on the frontier of layer two design architecture since it first started building Mantle DA, powered by technology from

eigenzee. Maybe it's because users are coming onto the mantle layer two to capture some of the highest yields available in Defy and to automatically receive the points and tokens being accrued by the $3 billion mantle treasury in the Mantle reward station. Maybe it's because the Mantle team is one of the most helpful teams to build with, giving you grants, liquidity support, and venture partners to help bootstrap your Mantle application. Maybe it's all of these reasons all put together. So if you're a dev and you want to build on one of the best foundations in crypto, or your user looking to claim some ownership on Mantle's Defi apps, click the a link in the show notes. So getting started with Mantle. Uniswap wallet is officially the preferred

wallet of bank lists. And it's the one we use any time when we want to transact on chain. Whether you're on your browser or on the go, Uniswap wallet makes it easier than ever to swap anytime, anywhere. Use your wallet to transfer funds directly from a top centralized exchange and tapping thousands of tokens across Ethereum. And over 10 other chains like base, arbitrum, and optimism. Uniswap wallet delivers deep liquidity, fast execution, and reliable quotes with zero gas swaps through Uniswap X. And when it comes through security, you can rest easy knowing it's backed by Uniswop Labs, one of the most trusted teams in Defy. Their code is open source and independently reviewed, so you know it's protected.

So why wait? Download the Uniswap wallet today on Chrome, iOS, and Android. And don't forget to claim your free uni.eith username directly in the mobile wall. Start swapping smarter with Uniswap.