Odd Lots - What Bitcoin Has To Do With The Dream Of Cryonics

Episode Date: July 8, 2019

Bitcoin has been around for roughly a decade now, but people have been working on the dream of an anonymous, digital currency for a lot longer than that. On this week's Odd Lots, we speak with NYU professor Finn Brunton, who is the author of the new book "Digital Cash: The Unknown History of the Anarchists, Utopians, and Technologists Who Created Cryptocurrency." Brunton talked to us Bitcoin's pre-history, and about how and why there was a major crossover between digital currency believers and people who want to freeze their bodies in order to live forever.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thanks for listening to Oddlots. Follow the show on Amazon Music for more future episodes or just ask Alexa, play the podcast, OddLotts on Amazon Music. Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Joe Wisenthal. And I'm Tracy Allaway. Tracy, remember the episode we did a few weeks ago with David Shom? I certainly do. That was a great episode. Yeah, I love that episode. And in part because, you know, I feel like of all this, you know, talking about about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies these days and really over the last couple of years, while a lot of the conversation is very forward-looking, people trying to figure out where it's

going to go next, what the technology could be used for, how big things could get. I find it very fruitful to actually look backwards. And before even figuring out where it's going to go next, trying to think about where it came from and some of the problems that the early people involved in the space we're trying to solve. Oh, absolutely. And I think whenever you're talking about new technologies, there's obviously, for very clear reasons, a tendency to focus on what's happening next and the future. And just trying to refocus a little bit of attention on the problems of the past is really useful. And often, you know, there's a reason that things have happened the way they did in the past. And it tells you something instructive about the future as well.

Right. So Bitcoin has basically been around 10 years and, you know, it's been obviously an extraordinary run. But the people who are involved, we don't really know who exactly invented Bitcoin. Obviously, that is a pseudonymous creator. But people were working on Bitcoin like problems for years before Bitcoin came about how to develop sort of digital internet money in one way or another. David Shom was one of them. Anyway, Paul. Part of the reason we book David is I was inspired from having read a book earlier in the year about this entire prehistory. And I thought it was so fascinating. And today I'm excited because we're going to be talking to the author of the book. And it's really all about the long period leading up to Bitcoin, the different ways people are working on it. I must admit, I haven't been able to read the entire book. I'm still in my Korean reading phase. and I'm now reading a very long history of the Korean War.

But I have skimmed it. It looks really interesting. And I think one of the things that comes through is that the idea of cryptocurrencies has always been sort of inextricably linked to a particular system of either values or sort of hopes and dreams for the future. Yeah, that's exactly right. So on the one hand, it's kind of a technological breakthrough. and the technology is important.

But really, it's about values in politics and morals and sort of the relationship that we have with big technology companies or big government, things like that. And so without further ado, I want to bring in our guests. We're going to be speaking with Finn Brunton. He is an NYU professor and the author of the newly released book, Digital Cash, the unknown history of the anarchists, utopians, and technologists who created cryptocurrency. currency. Fascinating book. Very excited to have the author. Finn, Brunton, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you for having me. So I just wanted to say, I loved this book, and I'm trying to

get as many people to read it, and I've tweeted about it a few times, and advocate. I think it's going to be one of the reads of the year. But I'm curious why you wrote the book. How did you get started on trying to really uncover the prehistory of digital currency? I was originally trained as a historian of science and technology. And one of the things that you learn when you work on that subject is how much the technologies around us, the things that made our built world, the things we use every day, both are there because of what they can do, but also because of what they can mean often, because of the hopes and promises and fears and visions and histories that are wrapped up in them.

So with that in mind, years ago, I was working. working on a project about spam, and I noticed how spammers were starting to adopt a lot of new weird currencies that I had never heard of before. This is even in the pre-Bitcoin days, but they were looking at currencies that were things like digital gold currencies in the 1990s, other ways to move money around that could protect them from the eyes of the law and various other forms of reprisal. And I just started to feel like there's something really rich here. And as soon as Bitcoin appeared, it all jelled for me. Like this is something where we can see in real time, in the present,

the evolution of a new set of technologies, both in terms of what they can do, but also in terms of all of the stories, the visions, the fantasies that are wrapped up in them. So, Finn, you mentioned the notion that we often have values or hopes attached to technology, but I'm wondering when it comes to cryptocurrency or digital cash in particular, it feels like because we're talking about money, which traditionally has been wrapped up in, you know, power and government and various other forms of authority, it feels like with money, there's even more values or hopes or dreams pin to this particular project. Is that what you learned? Oh, absolutely. Yeah, money is always meaningful and it's always a relationship, right? In a way that is, yeah, it's radically distinct from a lot of other kinds.

of technologies. And I love to think of money as being, you know, different scholars of money have come up with wonderful ways to try to describe what it is. Some people call it like, you know, a social micro-technology or a kind of diffused community power system, like an enormous variety of different ways to try to get at what this thing is. But the heart of it, the essence of it, was defined for me by Hyman Minsky, the wonderful monetary economist, who said that anyone can make money, like literally anyone can make money. The challenge is to get other people to accept it. And the process of getting money accepted, of getting money to pass, that's the process, that's kind of the moment where you see this thing really emerge as something that is

like uniquely bound in to our social and political structures. So whether that's in the form of a government being able to specify as, for example, the US dollar does, this is legal tender for all debts, public and private, meaning that, you know, if you owe me a debt, like, you can't pay it back in detergent, you know, or euros or whatever. Like, I can, I can demand dollars in exactly the same way that the government can demand payment of taxes in dollars. And that becomes a way of establishing not just the value of money, but also money, the U.S. dollar in this case, as an act of allegiance as something where we accept it and pass it by and large completely unconsciously because of a particular territorial political allegiance that we have.

And the same is true of the many, many other diverse forms of money that flourish and exist around the world today and also back through history. These are things that we accept because we believe that in the future they will be accepted from us. We will be able to pass them on in turn. And perhaps our passing them on is going to be because we want to participate in some specific community as with a local currency. Perhaps it's because it reflects our bonds with a larger kinship group as with a lot of, not necessarily currencies alone, but a lot of different kinds of

money that we see that have to do with exchanges within a particular tribe, within a particular culture, within a particular family, or even things that we accept because we think they will be worth something in the future because something bad is going to happen, because they will be worth more because of a crisis. I love that you brought in that Minsky quote because that's always been one of my favorites. So the book, I mean, not surprisingly, the people who are working on this problem or digital currency or new forms of money in the pre-Bitcoin era, people came at it from all different kinds of backgrounds as you really nicely portray in your book. Obviously, there's anarchists or people who may be doing something that's illegal, like spammers trying to figure out.

a way to skirt banking regulations or sort of Austrian economics types who hated the Fed and wanted some sound money, whatever it is. I have to say, and the most surprising thing to me in the book, which I had no realization before, and I've read a fair amount about cryptocurrencies, was the connection between cryptocurrencies and extropians or people who are really into cryogenics and life extension. I would never have made that connection before, but it was probably one of the most fascinating revelations. Let's talk a little bit about that.

Who were the extropians, and why were they interested in this digital currency back then? Yeah, they were absolutely the find for me in working on this project. There were a lot of things I discovered that they took the cake, partially because they were just about as visionary as it's possible to be in terms of the scale of their hopes and aspirations that they were

putting into working on digital cash. So the extropians were a fairly small network of kind of a loose mix of philosophers, technologists of various kinds, engineers, computer scientists, software developers, you know, sci-fi readers, and some interested fellow travelers who are all kind of mixed together, mostly in the Bay Area, but with kind of scattered, scattered others around the country and around the world. And two crucial things to know about the extropians going in is that they overlap incredibly, like closely with the cypherpunk movement that had preceded them, which is somewhat more widely known, the community of, again, mostly software developers and computer scientists

who wanted to bring strong encryption to the civilian world and start to be. building new technologies on top of that, like censorship, resistant, privacy preserving digital money. But the extropians also overlapped very, very tightly with a lot of the community around the initial appearance of Bitcoin. A lot of the same people who are part of the extropian movement are on that mailing list. One of them runs the mailing list on which the Bitcoin white paper appears. A lot of them are in the very earliest days of sort of kicking the Bitcoin project around and testing out the initial code. And a number of them have even been proposed as candidates for the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. So when you see that set of connections, you start to

think, who are these people? Who is this movement? And the essence of the extropian movement, as their name would suggest, is they are the anti-entropy movement. They want to use technological innovation and scientific discovery to produce a future of radical abundance. They have a future of radical abundance. have this set of key tenets, which really kind of captures the spirit of the movement back in the 80s and 90s, boundless expansion, dynamic optimism, self-transformation, intelligent technology, and spontaneous order. And when you combine all of those different aspects together, what you get is a story about the use of new forms of technology that will be able to spontaneously generate new ways to live, new sources of prosperity, energy, time, and space,

that will create new forms of intelligence. They're especially interested in these kinds of singularity style breakthroughs in artificial intelligence that will then be able to produce a future in which we can overcome a lot of the limits of the human condition and expand out into space and create some kind of radically new order of being. So now you ask, like, how does money have to do with this? And the marvelous answer is that for them, digital cash was not just, a way to, you know, protect the value of their assets from their fears for the future, for instance, even though that does play into it a little bit, but also a way to produce new kinds of markets

and new forms of economic incentives for innovation that will so accelerate the progress of technology that it will be able to lead to this series of breakthroughs that will make them effectively immortal, that will create the society that they envision in which they will be able to live forever. So how's that for an economic agenda? So Finn, can you walk us through that theory a little bit? Because I guess when it comes to incentivizing innovation in cryonics, a lot of people would say, well, why not just use existing normal money? Why do you need a particular form of digital or cryptocurrency? That's a really excellent question, actually. And part of the answer has to do with a deeper part of the heritage of cryptocurrencies, which we still see

having a strong influence, especially over early forms, like the early stages of Bitcoin, which is Austrian economics, the sort of Austrian school of economic theory. The Stropians did something really unique in some ways, which is that they fused the sort of Austrian economic theories, especially the work of Friedrich Hayek, with a whole kind of, for lack of a better way of describing it, very Californian, very science fiction influence sensibility to say that we want to produce a future that is not shaped by the existing ways that money moves around, because those are too slow and too limited in terms of how, for example, investment vehicles work, in terms of how those things are reviewed, in terms of how people can accumulate assets they could put towards,

for example, extropian goals that they could use to fund, you know, nanotechnology and singularity experiments and so on. They say to produce the kind of spontaneous, technological order that we want to produce, to produce the Society of Innovation, we want to adopt the model that Hayek develops, which is based on the idea of proliferating other kinds of currencies, of essentially proliferating a free banking system in which new kinds of technologies can generate their own banks, their own transaction platforms, their own kinds of money, and produce a sort of highly chaotic economic brew, which will be able to break the deadlock of how economic prosperity and funding are normally produced. And I'm not necessarily

when I say all these things, not as like advocating for this as a theory that I think holds water, but to sort of explain part of their ethos. And by kind of breaking the normal ways that funding is allocated for innovation, that major firms and institutions and governments encourage technological invention, they will be able to create something that we could think of as like wildcat innovation in the spirit of wildcat banking, right? Like, you know, uncharted banks that exist outside the normal apparatus of banking that are very well suited to functioning in terms of things like black markets, gray markets, intellectual piracy, you know, all kinds of overseas economic systems, which from their perspective, from the extropian perspective,

all feed into being able to fund and generate and germinate new technologies and new discoveries that would be otherwise being produced too slowly if they were produced at all. So just on that note, it feels like, so cryptocurrency is supposed to be this agent of extreme change, you know, sort of fostering new types of systems that thereby foster new technology. But at the same time, presumably people who are willing to freeze their own bodies in order to wake up in the future, they want their digital investments to also be a store of value, right? You're talking about a really long-term investment horizon. So how are they squaring, to put it mildly, how are they squaring the notion of cryptocurrency as an agent of radical change and the notion that it's also supposed to be? a, you know, fairly boring store of value. That really cuts to the heart of the challenge that the extropians faced and of the kind of tradeoffs that were embedded in a lot of these very early experiments with digital cash,

including the tradeoff that we can see being made on one side very strongly when we get to Bitcoin, right? So the way that they tried to walk that line was by producing a currency that would be able to be extremely reliable as a store of value. And you might ask, obviously, like, on what grounds could that be reliable? But one of the sort of crucial ideas will make this reliable by having something like a ledger system, by having some kind of mechanism whereby everyone that holds the currency can collectively agree on how much of it is going to be produced, on how much of it is going to be available. And that will make it so that you can hold these assets while you are, you know, technically dead or deanimated in metabolic coma,

as they put it. You can hold these assets and know that everyone else who holds them is going to be working with you to keep their value over the long term in a way that will save you from having to sort of worry about the idea that some other agenda, for example, you know, quantitative easing or, you know, pump priming or whatever, is going to dramatically change the value of this money that you have access to. But at the same time, you also want this money to have that kind of wild boom and bust capacity to be able to generate the sorts of frenzies of investment that they think are most likely to be able to generate these sorts of wild technological breakthroughs. So they never quite resolve that dichotomy. And you can see them developing

different kinds of money that work in both ways, from the people who are trying to develop like very, very stable, solid investment structures like dynastic trusts that would be able to hold and invest capital during your sort of posthumous period, that would be able to eventually fund your revival, and the people who are trying to generate these very unusual experimental currencies that would be much more productive of wild and disruptive, including economically disruptive breakthroughs. And a really interesting example of the latter kind of thing is an idea that the extropians worked on a lot called idea coupons, which were essentially a currency that would be issued against the likelihood of a future event happening, which you could both use, so a future

event on the level of like this number of people living on Mars by such and such a date, or a computer of the following like sort of metrics being in existence by such and such a date, which you could use to both fund that, but also transform it into kind of an investment mechanism for things that you otherwise would not easily be able to find a way to invest in that you want to see exist. So when we actually see Bitcoin come into being, one of the interesting choices that we see being made with that is that the decision has been made to shift over to the first aspect of what they want that currency to be, something that is notionally all about solidity, something that is all about being an extremely reliable deflationary store of value rather than something that's going

to produce this kind of frenzy of innovation, which will hopefully bring these changes about. The news doesn't stop on the weekends. Context changes constantly. And now Bloomberg is the place to stay on top of it all. Hi, I'm David Gurra. Join us every Saturday and Sunday for the new Bloomberg this weekend. I'm Christina Ruffini. We'll bring you the latest headlines, in-depth analysis, and big interviews. stories that hit home on your days off. And I'm Lisa Mateo. Watch and listen to Bloomberg this weekend for thoughtful, enlightening conversations about business, lifestyle, people, and culture.

On Saturday mornings, we put the past week's events into context, examining what happened in the markets and the world. That on Sundays, we speak with journalists, columnists, and key political figures to prepare you for the week ahead. Join us as soon as you wake up and bring us with you wherever your weekend plans take you. Watch us on Bloomberg Television. Listen on Bloomberg Radio, stream the show live on the Bloomberg business app, or listen to the podcast. That's Bloomberg this weekend. Saturdays and Sundays starting at 7 a.m. Eastern.

Make us part of your weekend routine on Bloomberg Television, radio, and wherever you get your podcasts. What I really love about this is that if you think about just sort of traditional finance or even just traditional money, this idea of porting value from time A to some, um, unspecified point in the future, maybe a year from now, maybe when you retire in 30 years. Already money currently exists to sort of fulfill this time travel function that we're talking about. So how do you preserve purchasing power from one point to another point? Currency itself is designed to hold value. It obviously leaks over time, investments, other structures.

So what essentially they're doing is trying to solve the problem that finance, currently solves, but just over much extreme time horizon. So, you know, you might go into a cryogenically preserved chamber. And you might not wake up for a thousand years because nobody knows when the technology will come to unthaw people. So in a way, you know, there's a pretty good chance that over a thousand years, your U.S. dollar bank accounts, there's a good chance that's gone. But it's essentially a way to just sort of radically alter the time horizons or the time scales that money and finance is already used for. Oh, yeah, absolutely.

And that's part of what is so kind of fascinating about it for me, and I hope for people at large, is this is like a thought experiment, except that people are actually trying to carry it out in practice for how you think about how money is embedded in time. Right? So just as you say, like whether we're talking about like depreciation schedules or like the discount rate or the way that we like out,

allocate money in our personal lives into college funds and 401ks and yeah, all that stuff. We're always, you know, sort of juggling and balancing different kinds of monetary time against each other. So here's a group who's thinking about this in the real long term. And it was also trying to understand the ways that money will transform in over time in relation to technological disruption. And they're doing that not just as like, you know, venture capitalists trying to kind of project different disruptive transformations into the future, but also as people who are trying to understand its consequences for their own lives. How will what money is be altered by these various new technologies that they're envisioning? How can they, as it were, bank on that to create

these particular kinds of currency that will be able to either fund those dramatic transformations that will bring them back from the dead or create the kinds of money that will enable, their prosperity when they are brought back from the dead. So, Finn, I wanted to pick up on this point, actually, and I'm about to utter a sentence that I never thought I would utter on odd lots, but, you know, cryonics. Cryonics is predicated on technology getting better, right? Like, no one at the moment is able to revive a body that's been put in deep freeze. So you're making a bet that scientists will at some point figure that out and be able to bring you

back from the dead. So why is there not a simultaneous belief that money will also get better and change? Why is there a belief that the digital money system that's invented now will endure for hundreds and hundreds of years? That's a really profound question, I think, because it also speaks to some of the, and I don't mean to be too critical. Like, I really found this such a marvelous community to work on, but to some of the blind spots. in the extropian model. And some of the blind spots that we might be able to discern more generally

in how we think about economics and money in the 21st century. Because absolutely, like what cryonics is, in essence, what one of those doers, those vats that hold the frozen human heads in them really is, is a kind of broken time machine, right? With the expectation that the future will be able to produce the engineers

who will get the time machine fixed so that your intelligence can step out of it at some point, you know, 100 years from now, a thousand years from now, what have you. However, there are two aspects of this idea that are not necessarily clear until you've kind of gotten deep into this literature that may explain this paradox that you've identified. The first aspect is that for a lot of the extropians, especially in the mid-1990s, you know, as we start kind of seeing the ramp up to the great bubble of excitement around the dot-com world, they thought that this was going to happen in the very near term.

You know, like the reason for going into cryonic deep freeze was not to be preserved for a thousand years, but just to gap your own death, to be preserved for like 30 years, you know, to not have the horrible irony of laying the groundwork to be the last generation that dies, you know, to just kind of leapfrogged. that brief interval. So in that respect, in that kind of tremendously foreshortened techno-optimism, you can see part of this, right? This idea that like, well, presumably the money system, as we know, will more or less be an existence on like, say, a 25-year, 30-year time horizon. But there's also a deeper aspect to this, which is that even if you set aside the conviction that our monetary

technology is going to stay this way for a very long time, right? That like if you put your cash into cryptocurrencies or into various other sort of early extropian ideas, then that is now going to remain the state of the art, you know, for the centuries to come. But an even larger question, which is whether or not this sort of model of money that we're working with is going to persist. Like if you think about cryonics on, you know, a thousand, thousand-year time horizon. Then you start to think, like, how many of us, like, if I showed up,

you know, to try to, like, buy a house with, let's say, like, a letter of mark that I received from a monarch a thousand years ago, that's probably not going to get me anywhere, you know. If we look back at the classes of money that were around even before the civil war in the United States, even before the development of the kind of territorial currency structure that we're now used to, it was radically different. So I think this reflects a weird mix and an interesting mix to think about in the cryptocurrency world of simultaneously being incredibly far-sighted, right? Like trying to think about the future of humans as technological creatures over the coming decades, the centuries, even the millennia, and also incredibly short-sighted, incredibly predicated on the idea that the way that we think about how money works and the way that we think about how economics works is going to. to stay more or less exactly the same for all of that time. And I think that paradox is something

that you can see even now in the way that people talk about and try to figure out what to do with cryptocurrency. I love this conversation so much. There's so many facets we could explore that we only have just a little bit of time left. Oh, before I forget, I love that characterization of a cryonics machine or whatever it is as a broken time machine. I remember you used that. that term in your book. And that really stood out to me because basically this idea of like, all right, here's a time machine. It doesn't work yet because we don't know how to unthaw the body. But at some point, someone is going to come along and fix it. I thought that was just, it's perfect. Before we wrap up, though, I would just curious, some of the names that you mentioned,

you know, the overlap between the extropians and the cypherpunks, who are some of the key individuals? I think the first person on Twitter to ever use the term Bitcoin was Hell Finney. Was he an extropian? He was. And in fact, he is cryonically preserved. He tragically passed away, you know, fairly young from ALS. And yeah, he's cryopreserved. And he has actually, I think, a really good example of the kinds of characters that I

discovered in working on the book. Because Finney is someone who turns up in so many days. different contexts. Like he's in the world of the cypherpunks. He writes a wonderful description of David Chalm's Digicash explaining the whole technology, the model, everything for extropi, the Journal of the Extropian movement. He's on their mailing list. And then, of course, in 2008, he is the sort of primary correspondent for Nakamoto. He provides a lot of key suggestions about how to refine the technology. He puts in a huge amount of work. He puts in a huge amount of work. on early versions of the software.

So he's one of the threads that really kind of ties this whole story together. Some people think he was Satoshi, right? Yes, yeah. There's a whole theory that he was Satoshi, which I don't think is true for a bunch of different reasons. But he is definitely someone who is like right at the center of that event. And it's actually really delightful. You can go back and read through these archives of the mailing list where for a while,

Finney's kind of the only guy who believes that Bitcoin could actually be a thing. But he's also still very critical in a really, you know, respectful way. But he's like looking at the software. And it's great to read knowing everything that happened to it afterwards. He's looking at these early technologies and being like, yeah, but I think, you know, you haven't really thought through this part, you know, or I think you need to really pin down this number before we go ahead. None of them knew quite what they were about to unleash on the world, I don't think.

But we also can follow people like Nick Zabo, who has also been proposed as a candidate for the real identity of Nakamoto. And Saba is someone who, likewise, turns up in the cypherpunk world, turns up in the extropian world, where he's making predictions about, like, with varying levels of confidence, about future, like, digital cash-enabled online marketplaces back in the early 1990s. And then creates a model for what a new currency could look like called bit gold that actually involves, like, mechanisms with the chain of digital signatures linked together. into a ledger of transactions, which is very, very kind of Bitcoin-esque. We can follow people like Tim May, who by and large, created key aspects of the cyphopunk movement, developed the model of crypto-anarchy, and was also someone who spent a lot of time hanging out on the extropian list and was very interested in enabling various kinds of

informational black markets using digital cash, one of which became a direct inspiration for the Silk Road. So we see one after another that when Bitcoin comes into being when the cryptocurrency revolution really starts, almost everyone who is at that moment of inception has been thinking about this kind of thing for decades and has been thinking about it for a huge variety of different utopian and political visionary reasons. Finn Brunton, this is a fascinating conversation. I can't recommend enough to people that if you're interested in this, You should go read the book because it's just completely mind expanding and eye-opening and really appreciate you coming on.

Thank you so much for having me. This has been a delight. Thanks, Finn. That was really great. Tracy, I love that conversation. I find this topic, you know what I was thinking about the whole time, is that the extropians and the cypherpunks and all the people that were involved in this, it feels like a situation in which they've willed science fiction to some of it. extent into reality. Like, obviously we don't have cryonic technology fully developed yet. People can't unthaw themselves. But it seems like a sort of weird example of people just sort of by sheer effort creating a new world on their own, essentially willing something that feels like science

fiction into some sort of quasi-existence and starting with money. Yeah. So I enjoyed that conversation too, and I'm actually really excited to sit down and properly read this book at some point. The thing that I find really interesting is, you know, you rightly point out they're sort of willing a sci-fi scenario into existence, but it's a sci-fi scenario that they themselves are choosing to focus on. And as we alluded to in the intro, there are all these values attached to it. And I'm sure there's a bigger debate to be had about whether or not we should be expending a lot of energy and resources and time on making sure that, you know, a select few elite individuals can be brought back to life in the future or whether we should, I don't know,

be trying to incentivize a solution to a broader problem like world hunger or climate change or something like that. There's a value judgment that has been made in focusing on cryonics. Again, another sentence I thought, I never thought I would say in all thoughts. No, you're absolutely right, Tracy. It's also interesting because after I read this book, I got super interested in just sort of cryonics and people who hacked their bodies or other sort of people who are into AI, like long future stuff. And what struck me is exactly what you say. You're like, well, there's all these other problems in the world, like global warming or poverty and so on. Why are we spending so much effort on this? And what's interesting is that I think for a lot of them, it's almost impossible to worry about the stuff that most people worry about, as long as death exists in the world. Like, oh, you're trying to worry about solving global warming. Meanwhile, we haven't even solved death yet.

So there's almost like this flip view, which is until we solve the number one cause of suffering, which is the fact that people die, how can we worry about anything else? So it's almost like completely the reverse of how people think about these problems. Right. So I guess in some ways they are tackling the problem of human existence. So we can congratulate them for that. But I do also think to that point, like there is a weird sort of mix, as Finn put it, of long-sightedness and short-sightedness and decisions being made to focus on particular problems and ignore

other ones. So for instance, when you talk to a lot of people who are either into cryptocurrency or cryonics or futurism of one sort or another, they're usually really down on, you know, politicians and existing authority structures. And yet, they're incredibly confident that, you know, a group of independent technologists are going to be able to change the world for the better. No, it is the contradictions and the sort of a mix between incredibly far looking into the future vision, but also very tunnel vision at the same time, is I think part of what makes this whole space so interesting. So this concludes the time travel slash cryonics odd lots episode.

You can follow me on Twitter at Tracy Allaway. And I'm Jill Wisenthal. You can follow me on Twitter at the stalwart. And you should definitely read the book, Digital Cash, from our guest today, Finn Brunton. And be sure to follow our producer on Twitter, Laura Carlson. She's at Laura M. Carlson, as well as the Bloomberg head of podcast, Francesca Levy, at Francesca today. Thanks for listening. I'm Francine Lacqua, an award-winning journalist, and I've got a new podcast, leaders with Francine Lacqua from Bloomberg podcasts. I've interviewed everyone from heads of state to fashion icons about the news of the moment. But I've always been curious, who are these people as leaders? I don't think there's one right way to be a leader. Make decisions. A poor

decision is always better than no decision. Listen to new episodes every other Monday. Follow leaders with Francine Lacroix wherever you get your podcasts. What separates good leaders from transformational ones? I'm Jessica Chen and in season two of Leading By Example, we'll sit down with executives like Grace Chen of Bertie Gray to find out. It's important to understand where you spike but also really acknowledge where you don't and find people who can fill those gaps.

Listen to leading by example, executives making an impact on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.