Context Setting

Or WTF am I doing on an Ethereum Project?

Are you feeling discombobulated?

When I announced my new path last week (leaving academia, starting Just Trying Something, joining Ethereum’s Summer of Protocols), I had some very interesting responses to the announcement. Did this mean I had converted from a die-hard statist nocoiner to a gung-ho crypto native? Was up now down? Had crypto well and truly conquered all?

Crypto dominating the world.

Easy now. Deep breaths.

In the immortal words of Taylor Swift, YOU NEED TO CALM DOWN.

I am still a Crypto Realist.

I’ve described myself this way for a while now. To me, being a “Crypto Realist” has meant that I’ve sought to understand and describe the realities of crypto systems, and to then consider the implications of those realities. Are crypto systems really immutable or decentralized? How does power actually work within them? How do the claims about crypto systems align with the realities of them, and what happens if there’s a gap between the two?

I’ve also been very concerned that as the crypto financial system has grown and become more intertwined with the legacy financial system (TradFi), we could see problems in the crypto world ripple into TradFi and cause a financial crisis — meaning that crypto could have widespread impact beyond those who have chosen to participate.

I have been clear that throughout my time as a crypto researcher, I have not owned any cryptocurrencies. This was because I believed my research would be more neutral and therefore more credible if I did not have to worry about whether my research would affect the value of my crypto holdings. I have also pointed out conflicts of interest in academics, lawyers, and others with crypto holdings, and warned of regulatory and policy maker capture by the crypto industry.

So yes, it probably surprised some people to see that I am going to be researching protocols this summer, funded by a grant from the Ethereum Foundation.

Some questions that naturally arise are:

• Have I ‘gone crypto’?

• Have I renounced and atoned for my prior views on crypto?

• Have I bought into the crypto ideology?

• Will I be advocating for the crypto industry to regulators and policy makers?

• Have I finally bought some tokens already?

All of these are fair questions, so let me try to answer them.

First, as I’ve announced, from May to August of this year, I will be a Core Researcher in the Summer of Protocols program, which is put on by the Ethereum Foundation. This means I am receiving a research grant from the Ethereum Foundation and will be working full-time for these months on my research.

My project is called Unconscious Protocol Participation, and I’ve described it in a prior post. The Summer of Protocols program is looking at protocols of all types - not just software or crypto protocols. My project is more about social protocols like religion or family traditions. I am sure that my crypto knowledge and the thinking I’ve done about group activities as part of my previous crypto research will inform my summer project, but it is not directly focused on crypto.

The Summer of Protocols research program was attractive to me because of its broad goals (to further thinking around protocols as a concept) and because there are no disciplinary bounds or rigid requirements for what the outputs have to look like. And, since I haven’t had income while on leave for the last year and won’t after I resign from my law professor role, getting summer research funding is very much appreciated.

With that said, let’s go through these questions.

Have I ‘Gone Crypto’?

I don’t consider myself to have ‘gone crypto.’ I have always considered myself a realist and a critic and I still have that mindset. If you’ve followed me on Twitter in the past, you may have seen me call myself an “equal opportunity critic.” To me, this means that I consider everything and everyone open to honest criticism (yes, I am fun at parties), whether it is a big bank, a regulator, a crypto dev, an academic, or a policy maker. I actually share many (most?) of crypto’s critiques of TradFi and current political systems, and I have for a long time.

So, while I have critiqued crypto, I have done that (a) because I found it interesting; and (b) so that people can make better decisions about it, both from individual and systemic perspectives. I see deep problems in both TradFi and crypto, and if people reject TradFi for crypto, I want them to do it clear-eyed about the realities and risks, rather than with rose-colored glasses. My critiques of crypto are not defenses of TradFi or existing regulatory structures.

I should note that my critiques of crypto in no way cover the field of possible critiques. I haven’t focused much on problems of fraud or in CeFi (which were catastrophic in 2022), as my interests are more in crypto systems themselves.

Have I renounced and atoned for my prior views on crypto?

My career shift is not a renunciation of my past work. I think my criticisms of crypto largely stand up, and my recommendations do as well. When I testified before the Senate Banking Committee in 2021, I think I upset crypto critics and proponents alike (based on the generous feedback I received on Twitter afterwards), but I told the truth as I saw it.

I am sure there are places in my past work where I would add nuance to clarify my position, but overall, I am generally comfortable with my body of work. (If you are unfamiliar with it, you can find it on my website.) I think accountability for builders and operators of infrastructural systems is a really hard issue, and while I’ve proposed possible ways of addressing this (my fiduciary/intermediary theories), more work is needed, and any way chosen to address accountability will inevitably have tradeoffs involved.

It is critically important to me to keep growing and learning, and I don’t want to feel compelled to take a particular position just because I have in the past. If I learn something that changes my mind, or I have a more nuanced analysis, I want to express that. And of course, crypto and the world keep changing, too.

One thing that is different from when I started writing about crypto 10 years ago is the now deeply weakened state of democracy and other important social institutions. I’ll write more about it in future posts, but I’ve had a quite dystopic view of the future since around 2006. Now, though, these theoretical dystopias I’ve envisioned seem much more imminent, and that also affects my views on crypto.

Have I bought into the crypto ideology?

Hmm. That is a tough one. I can’t possibly answer this fully in this post, but will hope to tease it out in this newsletter over time.

Certain ideas from crypto definitely resonate with me, such as seeing the value in financial privacy, and being able to control your own resources and preserve value for your future self.

At this particular moment of my life, when I am all about living more authentically and living by no one’s rules but mine, the idea of questioning existing protocols, rulesets, institutions, everything also hits home, and is something I consider to be at the core of crypto.

I’m at the point where I’m not just going to accept that something is good just because it has always been done a certain way. Call it an Anti Stare Decisis philosophy. Everything needs to justify itself from first principles, rather than saying, we follow precedent because that’s just what we do. Holmes’ dragon image, discussed in my last post, is relevant here, too. We need to bring these dragons (TradFi, crypto, regulation, etc) into the sunlight, evaluate every inch of them, and decide what to keep and what to toss.

I am less optimistic about the state and value of traditional institutions than the harshest critics of crypto, and more pessimistic about crypto's potential to offer positive alternatives than crypto proponents. I think both sides overstate their case, so I'm stuck in the middle with I'm not sure who. Other people who are pessimists about everything, I guess…

Will I be advocating for the crypto industry to regulators and policy makers?

I have no current plans to do this.

One thing I’ve really clarified through my self-reflection this past year is that I cannot say or represent things that I don’t believe are true without causing myself deep anxiety and pain. (And of course, saying things that aren’t true hurts others as well.)

So, in speaking to anyone, I will say what I myself think, rather than serving as a mouthpiece for the views of others or an institution. Just to clarify, I’ve been doing this already in my communications on crypto, but as an independent researcher/writer rather than a law professor or lawyer, I feel less constrained in doing so.

Have I finally bought some tokens already?

No, I do not own any cryptocurrency, and have no present plans to buy any. I am being paid in USD by the Ethereum Foundation for my research grant.

It’s possible that I may own crypto in the future. If I do obtain some, I will disclose that fact because it would be relevant to my credibility when writing or speaking about crypto.

My research as a law professor (2012-2023) has been funded by my salary and research grants from St. Mary’s University. When I traveled for an event or conference during this period, my travel was sometimes funded by the people who invited me, and who got that money from the sponsors of the event. Sponsors may have been crypto projects or companies, banks, educational or government institutions, law firms, etc.

Something else I’ve learned this past year is that I don’t want to have extreme or perfectionistic expectations of myself anymore. My stance on never owning any crypto, or never serving on a crypto advisory board, was driven in part by a fear of having my research or image be imperfect in some way. (More, lots more, on this in future posts!)

Obviously, my research was never perfect (an impossible standard!), and nothing I create ever will be. So, I’m stepping down from my pedestal. I can’t claim that my research funding will be pure as the driven snow (again, an impossible standard!). If I have the opportunity to have my research funded, I will carefully consider whether to accept the funding from that source, and if I decide to accept it, I will disclose it.

It is 100% fair for people to consider how the funding that pays for my work affects its credibility. I do the same when I evaluate the work of others. My greatest hope is that the my research and writing on crypto is unaffected by its funding source, but only the public can make that assessment.

That’s all for now for Post #3. I have to say that this is very refreshing. I’m enjoying speaking to the world more directly and in a way that feels natural to me.

Thanks very much for reading, and I’d love to hear what you think!