William Mougayar is the author of "The Business Blockchain", and a board advisor to the Ethereum Foundation, the non-profit that oversees the development of one of two blockchains seeking to popularize the software.

In this opinion piece, Mougayar offers his thoughts on the how blockchains and digital currency could change the way we work and how we are compensated.

We are in the early stages of a new chapter in the nature of work. The blockchain will enable us to do our jobs and be compensated inside new circular economies that have their own currency units and their own work units.

This, I believe, is one of the greatest themes to emerge from blockchain technology.

Most work today is compensated via bilateral agreements between a worker and an employer according to a simple contract: you work in X job, and we will compensate you in Y currency.

But what if we had greater autonomy over how we choose our own work? With more control, we would then be able to perform new types of tasks that may or may not resemble what is traditionally considered labor, and earn cryptocurrency instead of fiat currency.

As a result, instead of doing one job we could hold several paying jobs that are diversified, while not being tied down by the constraints of a single employer.

Already, a number of blockchain based businesses are compensating users for their 'work' via digital tokens.

Steemit for example, rewards users who vote-up or write posts on its decentralized content platform.

The theory of decentralized transportation platform La’Zooz is that you earn Zooz points, just by driving your car while the app collects data about your driving patterns.

A healthcare research entity could pay patients or normal people who share their medical data, in exchange for the collective wisdom that is gained by aggregating that information, and returning personalized or comparative insights.

At the heart of making this possible, is the relationship between actual work done, value created, and value received.

Let us dissect what is happening here:

Users perform some work, either passive (driving and sharing data), or active (voting a post, or making a decision). Each marketplace has its own 'unit of work', consisting of a variety of activities. Each unit of work generates value for the marketplace, for other users and for the end-user themselves. This is an expansion of the network effect theory where each user’s actions benefits other users. In return for that value, users are rewarded with a native token currency, the marketplace’s own currency. That currency can be spent inside the marketplace on another transaction or service (eg taking a ride, promoting content), or it can be exchanged outside the marketplace against another cryptocurrency or fiat money. The value of the marketplace as a whole increases proportionally with the amount of activity and value that are generated inside of it.

There is a new system of work that is unfolding, and blockchains are enabling it.

This is not a Ponzi scheme, but rather a new way to generate economic value. Of course, some companies will try to abuse this system, but others that have thought carefully about its mechanics and operations will benefit and enable their users to also partake in their success via the sharing of network equity.

The most important elements that have to be done right are:

the work being done must be varied work being done must be valuable and valued users should be able to spend their internally currency internally in order to generate more value.

What is happening here is the creation of mini circular economies that are self-contained. Some of these models will be created by new companies, while others will be spun out of existing companies.

The models coming out of existing companies will be interesting to watch because most companies and their users create an excess of value that is not well captured. Linking the critical elements together as depicted in my diagram would give a new life to a new economic model.

Could this be the future of work and wealth creation? Possibly.

This article originally appeared on Mougayar's blog, Startup Management, and has been republished here with his permission.

Image of gears via Shutterstock

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, CoinDesk.

Economics

Original author: William Mougayar

"With our BitGo wallet solution it becomes impossible for our users to lose their bitcoins due to us being hacked or stealing them."

So wrote Bitfinex CFO Giancarlo Devasini about the bitcoin exchange's then-new multi-signature security architecture roughly a year before $60m was stolen in one of the industry's highest-profile hacks this week.

While we know that multi-sig accounts were impacted by the hack (which doesn’t look good for the security feature), it's still unclear exactly how this breach occurred. Still for many it begs the question, what does this breach mean for multi-sig technology, an innovation often heralded as the future of bitcoin security?

Thursday, the co-founder and CEO of the industry's largest multi-sig provider BitGo, Mike Belshe, provided an update on the situation, explaining that his startup's software "functioned correctly" during the incident. Further, both companies in the partnership have now said that BitGo, and its multi-sig solutions, were not at fault.

But for many, that answer isn’t enough. In the court of public opinion, the verdict as to who – or what – should carry the blame is still out.

Those working closely with multi-sig technology argue it shouldn't be the scapegoat, and that it still should form a core part of exchange security.

Former BlockTrail business development lead Jop Hartog, whose firm offered multi-signature wallets prior to its acquisition this year, said he believes exchanges should still consider the technology, but that they need to understand it's not a single solution.

"Exchanges should [use multi-sig], and should look for a proper solution for their risks, once they know what they want to have, then go look for a partner," he told CoinDesk.

Hartog added:

"Multisig is the only way forward with current exchanges, but it depends on the implementation to be secure."

The argument is multi-signature offers a flexible security model with many different configurations, as funds cannot be spent unless two or more users sign the transaction.

However, what the incident might have exposed is that this technology is only as strong as its supporting infrastructure. For Adamant Research's Tuur Demeester, the incident is a sign of the tech's maturation process.

"You think you have the silver bullet and it turns out to be more complicated than you thought," he told CoinDesk, adding:

"Multi-sig has gotten a blow, it has to be rethought."

Secure multi-sig

In Bitfinex’s case, two particular configurations were used.

Users who were lending or borrowing for the purposes of margin trading had three keys distributed, with one to Bitfinex, one to BitGo and one to the user. Users who were trading had a different arrangement, where two out of three parties needed to sign to release the funds. BitGo had one of the keys and Bitfinex had two.

As previously profiled, it appears that Bitfinex's key was compromised, but that BitGo didn't necessarily detect the unusual actions that would have been required to drain the exchange of nearly one-sixth of its monthly volume with speed.

According to Peter Van Valkenburgh, director of research at non-profit advocacy group Coin Center, Bitfinex could have used multi-sig in a way that didn’t expose this vulnerability. (BitGo is among Coin Center's public donors).

In a detailed blog post yesterday, Van Valkenburgh described one secure scenario where every customer is given "unilateral ability" to access their funds, but that in the event that the customer loses one of the private keys, the exchange, or other service-provider, has a recovery key available.

"If the service provider is hacked, the only keys compromised are the single backup keys," he wrote. "To actually steal the bitcoins, the hacker needs to also target and compromise every individual customer — a substantially harder task than compromising one server."

Despite some concerns that cold storage (where bitcoins are kept offline and not in wallets connected to the Internet) was a better option, Van Valkenburgh writes that multi-sig offers a different type of security.

One isn’t necessarily superior, he asserts.

"I could put keys to a pooled wallet on a USB drive and hide it in my five-year-old niece’s dollhouse. That storage is cold (the dollhouse doesn't have Wi-Fi) but it's also a terrible idea," he wrote.

Still, Demeester noted that multi-sig has inherent limitations as well.

"The problem with multi-sig is you can have insiders steal, and you can have people be imposters who pretend to be one or multiple of the multi-sig parties," he said.

Combined solutions

On the other hand, the security technologies aren't mutually exclusive.

Demeester suggested older solutions like cold storage, and bleeding-edge technologies like the Bitcoin Lightning Network, are likely to gain more attention in the wake of the attack.

Former Blocktrail CTO Ruben de Vries told CoinDesk that the most secure option is to combine multi-sig with cold storage:

"Obviously a combination of cold storage and a multisig wallet is superior to just either one of them. It's unfortunate that Bitfinex made the choice not to have any cold storage for unknown reasons."

Bitfinex moved away from a cold storage model last year, and some have speculated that this change could have been triggered by an enforcement action from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in which it was forced to change how it "delivered" customer funds.

It's notable that exactly how this changed the exchange's infrastructure is not known, and that it's also the matter of a petition from a prominent law firm seeking for the CFTC to disclose this information.

Rodolfo Novak, CEO and founder of the multi-sig wallet Coinkite, contends that hardware security modules, or devices that store the digital keys, could have mitigated the issue.

"The employment of HSMs is the only sane way of managing funds. If Bitfinex had an HSM on their end, [they] would probably have been able to stop the transactions much sooner," he said.

Impact unknown

The consensus seems to be that while multi-signature adds security, it’s best used with other technologies and secure equipment.

On that note, Belshe said yesterday that BitGo’s other exchange partners – including major exchanges Kraken and Bitstamp – are using different implementations of its software.

"Fortunately, the Bitfinex configuration was unique and other BitGo customers do not need immediate changes," he said.

Belshe writes that the hack should be seen as an opportunity for exchanges to carefully inspect their security models, so that the ecosystem can move forward from this latest step back.

However, whether multi-sig solutions offered by BitGo or others will be a part of that strategy, remains to be seen.

Pete Rizzo contributed reporting.

Update: The description of how Bitfinex and BitGo handled key management has been updated.

Disclaimer: CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which has an ownership stake in BitGo. 

Broken lock image via Shutterstock

BitfinexBitGoMultisigSecurity

Original author: Alyssa Hertig

The Bitfinex hack appears to be forcing the exchange to consider unconventional measures as part of a bid to relaunch after last week's $60m hack.

The Hong Kong-based bitcoin exchange announced last night that it is "leaning towards" a scenario that would see it socialize losses among bitcoin users and margin traders with BTC/USD positions. While not "set in stone", the idea that users could potentially share losses equally has nonetheless prompted speculation given the perceived impact the exchange's ultimate closure could have on both the price of bitcoin, and its perception as a technology among the general public.

In the wake of the statement, market observers are attempting to assess the nature of the approach and whether it will be enough to resolve the issues at the exchange, one of the largest on the bitcoin network by volume prior to its shutdown.

Speaking to CoinDesk today, representatives of the ecosystem's trading and exchange communities agreed that this would mark one of the first times, if not the first time, a socialed loss proposal would be implemented in the wake of a hack at a major digital currency exchange.

Michael Moro, CEO of OTC trading firm Genesis Trading, told CoinDesk:

"I can’t think of another situation in which something similar has been proposed in digital currency."

While the idea appears to be in its early stages, market observers did emphasize that by taking funds from all its bitcoin users – even those whose funds are potentially still under the exchange’s control – and redistributing them, Bitfinex was moving into territory that was largely without past precedent.

Experienced market observers as diverse as Whale Club community admin BTCVIX, HaoBTC director of marketing Eric Mu and blockchain consultant Antony Lewis, for example, struggled to recall another similar instance, as did others when reached.

Still, some suggested such a scheme may be the only path forward for keeping the exchange online.

"I think it may be necessary evil to avoid a Mt Gox-style shutdown," Mu said.

Indeed, at press time, there remains a lack of clarity as to what the exchange means by "socialized loss", whether it could be legally implemented or if Bitfinex would face any potential liability should certain aggrieved parties take action if it pursues the plan.

Past precedent

Still, others noted that similar actions have been taken by smaller exchanges in the past on rare occasions, and that some, have even been successful in efforts to relaunch.

Adamant Research's Tuur Demeester noted that, while the definition was not used at the time, the situation bears a resemblance to actions taken by digital currency exchanges like Poloniex and Bitfloor in the past.

For example, Poloniex moved to pay back exchange users in 2014 after it lost 12.3% of all its bitcoins in a hacking incident. In this case, Poloniex would go on to repay customer claims in a matter of months, eventually rising from a relatively unknown platform to the largest ethereum exchange by trade volume.

Of note, is that Poloniex, however, does not offer fiat currency trading, while Bitfinex does.

Another reference point was an incident on China-based exchange Huobi’s margin trading platform, BitVC, in 2014, when it garnered criticism for socializing user losses.

But for some, this comparison doesn’t describe the current situation at Bitfinex given that, in this instance, users were opting into an agreement and accepting the risk of a socialized loss in exchange for the potential gains offered by higher margins.

"This is completely different than the high leverage socialized loss futures contracts," BTC VIX said. "[These firms] have an insurance fund that buffers those times they incur a loss and that often covers the system loss."

Legal uncertainties

Still, many market observers have questions about whether the exchange could legally implement such a measure. Legal experts suggested that, while the market may be looking for easy answers, these may be speculative at best for now.

For example, Bitfinex's terms of service state that it was formed under the law of the British Virgin Islands, meaning any lawsuits could take place in this jurisdiction. At press time, Bitfinex's terms of service were no longer available online, though a cached version can be found here.

One legal expert, speaking on background, said that while it remains to be seen whether Bitfinex or its security partner BitGo will be sued, both could face liability even if it’s not immediately clear who would sue or where the lawsuit would be filed.

"BitGo’s terms of service have a mandatory arbitration clause, Bitfinex has a class action waiver, there are all sorts of impediments to bringing claims," he said, adding:

"But, just because you have terms doesn’t mean they will be in force."

Digital currency advocate and trial lawyer Drew Hinkes emphasized that the terms of service for the companies would be of key importance.

He noted Bitfinex's terms of service call for mandatory arbitration and feature a broad definition of loss and force majeure.

"This would create some challenges for a party wanting to bring a claim," he said.

'Wild West' return

Most respondents interviewed had a number of unresolved questions about how the situation would develop going forward, though there were some commonalities.

For instance, there was uncertainty as to whether authorities would get involved, and if they did, whether they would allow the exchange to continue operating and move forward with a repayment plan.

The exchange is said to be in contact with authorities, but at press time, representatives of Bitfinex haven't offered clarity as to which are involved.

Indeed, commentary often devolved into some of the more existential questions facing the bitcoin ecosystem, those related to the intent of the technology and its ability to succeed on the vision for finance it has popularized.

Indeed, the irony that bitcoin’s technology is facing security concerns due to the use of traditional financial models by its startups was not lost on market observers. Financial Times writer Izabella Kaminska, for example, used her particular acerbic brand of reporting to raise these pertinent questions.

However, it seems even bitcoin entrepreneurs are finding overlap with her insights.

Andrea Medri, CFO of bitcoin exchange The Rock Trading, said he is still wondering why so much bitcoin was being kept on the exchange.

"The beauty of this technology is that you can be your own bank and leave your assets with an intermediary such as an exchange for few minutes only," Medri said, concluding:

"People need to realize that they don’t need custodians any longer."

Disclaimer: CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which owns Genesis Trading and has an ownership stake in BitGo.

Image via Shutterstock

BitfinexBitGoExchangesLawSecurity

Original author: Pete Rizzo

Nozomi Hayase, PhD, is a writer who has been covering issues of freedom of speech, transparency and decentralized movements. 

In this opinion piece, Hayase discusses what she asserts is the current disorderly state of US democracy, arguing that the system is rigged, and that efforts to improve it may benefit from a better understanding bitcoin's security model.

America has passed the twilight zone.

The nomination of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential primary confirmed the charade of US politics. Elections are sold to the highest bidder. No matter how much popular support a candidate like Bernie Sanders might garner, the corporate masters who sponsor this rigged game in the end take all.

Many know that we do not live in a democracy, yet the level of corruption is becoming even more blatantly apparent. Now, the oligarchic class doesn't need to lobby candidates. They can simply run for office, just like Donald Trump.

When essential functions of democracy are disabled and the system has lost its internal safety mechanisms, what can ordinary people do? The success of Bernie Sanders in galvanizing millennials, along with his independent campaign financing, revealed that the people do care and that the issue is not a lack of will for change.

The problem goes much deeper into the very structure of current governance. The fundamental challenge seems to revolve around a lack of true understanding of adversaries and the psychology of those in power.

Most people tend to assume good in others and think they operate with similar motives.

The deep failure of democracy has shaken up these assumptions, showing this to be a naive and overly idealistic view of man. The 2008 financial meltdown and crisis of legitimacy exposed the existence of individuals who have a radically different makeup than the rest of the population. These are psychopaths, whom psychopathy expert Robert Hare called "social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life".

They embody a dark side of man, with aggressive and narrow selfish desires that often come in conflict with the public good. Our innocence about these individuals makes us easy prey.

How can ordinary people effectively resist the agendas of this hidden cannibalistic, two-party duopoly, trying to devour all that is human?

Assange's call for cryptographic defense

The battlefield became visible in 2010, when a little known organization called WikiLeaks came to public limelight with the publication of the Collateral Murder video.

This whistleblowing site began revealing what Julian Assange once described as "a system of interacting organs, a beast with arteries and veins whose blood may be thickened and slowed until it falls."

WikiLeaks continues to be effective. From the Turkish ruling party email archive to a database from the DNC, they just released vital documents that shed light on the machinations of governance, which are in many ways holding people hostage.

Assange, who has become a lightning rod for the world’s superpowers through his work of publishing their secrets, has seen the true face of the enemies. In his New York Times Op-Ed, he described the parallel between George Orwell’s time and ours. Assange described Orwell’s prophecy in his 1945 essay "You and the Atomic Bomb", about the future of society, noting that when dominant weapons are expensive and complex, society tends to fall into dystopia, and when weapons become cost efficient and simple, they give common people a chance; giving, in Orwell’s words, ‘claws to the weak’.

With this as a context, Assange described the power of math.

"If there is a modern analogue to Orwell’s ‘simple’ and ‘democratic weapon’,
which 'gives claws to the weak' it is cryptography, the basis for the mathematics behind bitcoin and the best secure communications programs."

Bitcoin’s underlying technology provides proof of publishing and helps WikiLeaks counteract state censorship. In its seven years of existence, bitcoin has gained wide mainstream attention with its disruptive potential in finance. Yet, currency is only its first application.

Bitcoin’s underlying technology, the blockchain, is a public asset ledger. This is a distributed database that records all history of transactions in a network without anyone in charge. Once data is verified, no one can undo it. The real breakthrough of this invention lies in its immutability and its potential to create a new form of governance that is censorship free and resilient to corruption.

The left's response to this technology has typically been very critical, simply viewing it as money for 'libertarians' or associating it with 'capitalism'. Yet, through an openness to grasp the fundamentals behind this innovation, we may be able to build our own tools to fight against these wolves in sheep’s clothes, who conspire to enact their neoliberal agenda.

Security holes in representative democracy

Bitcoin is built with a keen understanding of adversarial forces.

Instead of naively assuming good intentions in others, the creator of this technology, Satoshi Nakamoto expected that some would try to cheat and attack the network. This assumption is shared by developers who are committed to Satoshi's vision of this particular security model.

At the Hong Kong Scaling Bitcoin conference, developer Andrew Poelstra explained the mindset that bitcoin lives in an adversarial environment and that the possibility of individuals acting selfishly and taking advantage of others' goodwill needs to be factored into designing its governance.

Bitcoin Core developer Peter Todd also emphasized the necessity of adversarial thinking. In a Twitter interaction on the topic of security, Todd noted, "security isn’t about people promising they won't do something, it’s about people being unable to do something".

At the core of bitcoin’s development is an acknowledgment that we live in a world where psychopaths exist. So efforts are made to meet this beast within humanity. Psychopaths assault human trust for their predation.

As articulated by psychiatrist Hervey M Cleckley in "Mask of Sanity", deception is at the core of psychopathy. These ruthless individuals fake empathy to elicit trust and then exploit it. When a governance model is structured in a manner that relies heavily on trust, such a system inevitably becomes vulnerable to this unknown member of society who can cleverly mimic good attributes of human nature and blend in.

This representative democracy that requires people to trust elected officials has increasingly become a mask used by ruthless individuals behind the scenes to hide and gain a grip on the people.

Bitcoin as a new security model

Bitcoin’s security is designed to offer armory against psychopathic attacks.

In the seminal white paper, creator Satoshi Nakamoto described bitcoin as a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that would allow "online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution".

Nakamoto stated that it was put forward as a solution to the "inherent weakness of the trust-based model", where financial institutions act as trusted third parties.

Author and security expert Andreas Antonopoulos called this new model of security "trust by computation" that has "no central authority or trusted third party".

He explained this form of trust as follows:

"Trust does not depend on excluding bad actors, as they cannot 'fake' trust. They cannot pretend to be the trusted party, as there is none. They cannot steal the central keys as there are none. They cannot pull the levers of control at the core of the system, as there is no core and no levers of control."

With this trust by computation, the need to trust institutions or central authorities is replaced with mathematics. Human trust is easily exploited by those prone to act with little concern for others. In the bitcoin network, where there is no point of control, attackers cannot fake trust. In order to gain control over the network, they would have to compromise math.

Bitcoin’s new security model is embodied in a particular consensus mechanism called proof-of-work. Composed of a combination of cryptographic hash functions, game theory and economic incentives, this proof-of-work facilitates creation of networks that self-regulate and develop their own defense mechanisms against attackers.

The function called mining contributes significantly to this process.

Bitcoin mining is a broadcast math competition engaged by computers around the world with clear rules, such as the total number of bitcoin created, a predictable issuance rate and automatic adjustment of mining difficulty. By using precious resources, miners work to solve difficult math problems.

Each 10 minutes, problems are solved and whoever solves the problem first wins a fixed number of bitcoins. This process leads to both creation of money and validation of transactions and it is designed to create economies of scale, with rewards incentivizing all players to follow the rules of consensus.

Law of self-regulation

As with any system of governance, the question may arise as to how will a network without any authority maintain law and order. How can this math-based network enforce these rules of consensus and fair play?

In traditional systems, psychopaths rise to power, cheat and control the game. In these new cryptographic systems, anti-social forces and psychopathic deception to cheat the system could manifest in anti-network tendencies.

This might be translated into covert chip fabrication, spam attacks or miners colluding in a mining pool to earn more than their fair share.

While most people are bound by empathy and naturally restrain actions in consideration of others’ needs, those who are devoid of conscience are not governed by these internal laws of empathy and therefore cannot regulate self-interests. Before this master manipulator, traditional systems of accountability have shown to be ineffective.

Regulation and laws often fail to restrict their actions or offer protection because this very mechanism has been gutted and used by those in power for their advantage. Moreover, efforts of law enforcement to regulate and punish selfish actors often just make them more cunning, controlling and deceitful.

This bitcoin network governed by proof-of- work rewards those who work honestly and the transparency it provides penetrates deception. There is no shortcut to gain rewards without work. If one wants to be rewarded, they have to solve math problems by using resources and playing by the rules just like everyone else. Under Bitcoin’s rule of consensus, the old tactics of coercion and aggression won’t work.

Robert Wolinsky, senior manager of blockchain research, explains how "Satoshi introduces a cost equation to cheating and collusion via the proof-of- work protocol", making it clear to parties what the cost of attacking the network is and having them pay for it upfront.

Furthermore, by making the rewards for playing by the rules higher than the value of attacking the network, it can proactively protect the system from the lack of impulse control of those who are instinctively programmed to act against any network with no remorse.

Bitcoin developer’s approach to security incorporates the attacker's mind into the system.

It is like taking a pathogen in order to strengthen the immune system. Concrete rewards are used to channel self-serving aims and the insatiable hunger for power, turning this energy into generating global level security for all.

Decentralization as collective dissent

Power corrupts, and the best way to check and balance power is to not have these points of control in the first place.

Decentralization disarms those who seek to control us behind a façade of democracy. In a horizontal system, there is no ladder of power that psychopaths can climb to exploit others. Through distributing trust across a network and minimizing the necessity to trust a third party, the system removes vulnerabilities that often lead to concentration of power.

Psychopathic infiltration of society has expanded globally with secret corporate trade deals like the TPP, cycles of merciless austerity and endless wars, creating instability of regions and massive migrant crises. Now the battle for democracy has gone digital. With mass-surveillance and censorship on the Internet, with drones and dissemination of Artificial Intelligence, technology is being used in many ways to make humanity bow down to the tyranny of corporotocracy.

The question of our time is; in whose hands will the future of governance lie? Will it be centralized or decentralized? Will technology be used to enslave humanity or used as a tool for emancipation?

No matter how noble the genius of this consensus algorithm is, by itself it can’t do anything. Encryption technology alone did not create WikiLeaks. It is the network of contagious courage built around this technology that made it truly revolutionary, showing how great power requires the human heart to harness it.

No matter how imperfect the Framers of the US Constitution were, they recognized that ‘We the People’ is a preamble to any legitimate form of governance. In a similar way, a code that carries this same democratic premise needs to be defended and amended whenever necessary by an open network of peers.

Cryptography can become our non-violent democratic weapon. It can be used as a shield for our collective dissent against institutional hierarchies. Elections have become a distraction to pull the wool over our eyes. Now networks of ordinary people, empowered by a deep obligation to one another, can fight against this two-horned beast that would have us all descend into a dystopia.

Only a democracy freely claimed by all people can defeat the rise of demagoguery.

This article originally appeared on Counterpunch and has been republished here with the author's permission.

Democracy image via Shutterstock

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, CoinDesk.

DemocracyPoliticsWikileaks

Original author: Nozomi Hayase

A new paper from Deloitte re-imagines the sports stadium concept in light of a number of developing technologies.

Notably, Deloitte gives the example of a fantasy sports-style interaction — a "game within the game" — where bets are placed using bitcoin "on in-game events, or use stadium-provided technology for other micro-transactions".

The consultancy sees the sports stadium experience as one ripe for technological innovation, building on what's already taking place on the court or field.

The paper explains:

"While a team is focused on delivering the best possible game experience to its fans, it can’t be all things to all people. Giving developers access to stadium infrastructure allows the team to benefit from the creativity of many."

The authors propose the development of a sports stadium that is more than a “concrete donut”, but rather a technology stack comprised of an experience layer, an enabling tech layer and a technology infrastructure layer.

By opening the stadium’s technology infrastructure to third-party developers, according to the paper, new services could be offering using blockchain and other nascent technologies.

Deloitte compares the idea of building a wide range of applications for stadiums to Apple’s development of its own hardware-as-a-platform for software products, which last year was a $6bn-a-year business in net revenue for the technology giant.

Image of screen on grass field via Shutterstock; Stadium graph via Deloitte

Deloitte

Original author: Michael del Castillo

Some of the most recognizable leaders in the blockchain industry have agreed to participate in a newly launched advisory panel organized by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

Included on the regulatory authority and central bank's 15-person International Technology Advisory Panel (ITAP) is CEO of Digital Asset Holdings, Blythe Masters; CEO of SolidX, Daniel Gallancy; and managing director of R3CEV, Tim Grant.

ITAP met for the first time this week to discuss a wide range of applications of blockchain, among other FinTech trends, at an event attended by Deputy Prime Minister and chairman of the monetary authority, Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

In statements, MAS managing director Ravi Menon described the meeting as "fruitful" and framed it as the latest development in the city-state's emerging position as a global leader in financial technology innovation.

Menon said:

"This in-depth discussion with global leaders in innovation marks another step in the ongoing journey by the MAS and the financial industry in Singapore to create a smart financial centre – one that harnesses technology to increase efficiency, manage risk, create new opportunities and improve the welfare of Singaporeans."

Also represented in ITAP are chief innovation and science officers from global financial institutions, FinTech business leaders and venture capitalists.

As part of Singapore's efforts to develop into a global financial center, the nation’s Monetary Authority has set aside $225m as part of a five-year investment plan in financial technology.

Initially, part of those resources were used to fund a blockchain recordkeeping project, but since then, a wide range of efforts have unfolded.

Notably, in June, IBM opened an incubator at Singapore’s Marina Bay that is expected to eventually employ 5,000 computer scientists specializing in blockchain and other fields.

Though the Watson Centre opened with plans to rapidly build blockchain prototypes using IBM’s artificial intelligence tools, it was only a short time later than the company launched another blockchain project within the Singapore facility.

By mid-July, IBM had announced a collaboration with MAS and the Singapore Economic Development Board as part of a project within the centre that will focus on using blockchain tech to increase the efficiency of multi-party trade finance.

Members of ITAP engaged with industry professionals, academics, and students in four-panel discussions at the meeting on Tuesday that is said to have explored the potential impact of blockchains on domestic commerce.

The next ITAP meeting is scheduled for 2017.

Singapore image via Shutterstock

AsiaBlythe MastersDigital Asset HoldingsR3Singapore

Original author: Michael del Castillo