Fintech

The crypto-communists behind the Web3 revolution

The future of decentralized finance echoes a decidedly Marxist vision of the future. Why aren’t we talking about this?

Marc Andreessen, Brian Armstrong, Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk

The ideological wars ripping crypto apart have historical precedent.

Illustration: Bloomberg and Getty Images; Protocol

An end to the nation-state, the upending of modern finance and a new world order. What could go wrong?

As cryptocurrency swells in value, both financial and cultural, it’s easy to read the phenomenon as hypercapitalist: Bitcoin’s price swings get airtime on CNBC alongside the Dow and Nasdaq. But a recent dispute among some of the industry’s top figures have served as a reminder of digital currency’s libertarian-anarchist roots.

Alongside the hedge-fund cowboys arbitraging and leveraging their way to fresh fortunes, there’s a culture war being waged, with big implications for anyone thinking that the blockchain is just a cool way to lower the cost of cross-border remittances. Hidden in the army of moneymen is a fifth column of revolutionaries. Meet the new crypto-communists.

We’re stealing the term from Winston Churchill, who used it as a Cold War epithet. If you don’t dwell on the historic echoes, though, it’s a useful shorthand for the more extreme, sometimes radical views that undergird some crypto supporters’ enthusiasm for the idea of detaching the world’s financial architecture from its current moorings.

The ’90s internet had its share of utopian dreamers, as did Web 2.0. Web3, as some call the crypto revolution, is another exercise in grappling with what the future will look like and who will lead it. And as in past upheavals, there are heated debates over who’s the genuine crypto revolutionary — and who’s just faking it.

Block party

The crypto culture war exploded into a full-scale tech feud as 2021 was ending when Twitter co-founder and Block CEO Jack Dorsey lashed out at critics who suggested that he was a Web 2.0 remnant trying to reinvent himself as a Web3 pioneer. His now-famous tweet — “You don’t own ‘web3.’ The VCs and their LPs do.” — triggered a bitter tit-for-tat with Marc Andreessen of Andreessen Horowitz, who blocked Dorsey on Twitter, then taunted him for weeks.

Andreessen’s firm has backed Coinbase, OpenSea and other crypto firms that many view as centralizing the crypto world. Dorsey has made a fortune off of the VC-backed Block, but he’s also backed decentralized crypto projects that don’t seem to have any near-term payoff. One way of looking at crypto is the classic alchemy where Silicon Valley transmutes technological disruption into gold; the other prizes disruption as a goal in and of itself.

It’s easy to see the ideological fault lines between the two — even the historical resonances between the compromising Mensheviks, who were willing to work with less-purist parties to bring about change, and the hardline Bolsheviks.

“There are decades when nothing happens, and there are weeks when decades happen.” That’s a quote from the most famous Bolshevik, Vladimir Lenin, but it resonates in Silicon Valley today. (I heard it from a fintech executive who thought he was quoting John Lennon.)

Lenin’s maxim captures crypto’s astounding transformation from fringe movement to world-shaking trend. It has been embraced from San Francisco to New York and from Singapore to London, even as it draws heavy fire from governments, regulators and those who see it as a scam, environmental plague or both.

The question is whether crypto’s supporters are drawn to it because there’s money to be made — see Citadel Securities' recent VC-fueled move into the sector — or because of the prospect for more fundamental change. The line between revolutionary and opportunist is once again blurring.

The barrel of a blockchain

"The government is simply the biggest corporation, with a monopoly on violence and where you have no recourse.”

That one’s not Lenin. It’s recent crypto convert Elon Musk, who emerged last year as an unlikely dogecoin evangelist. But Musk and Lenin seem simpatico when it comes to the “ultimate aim of abolishing the state” (Lenin): “Just delete them all,” Musk recently said, of the government subsidies that have historically sustained his firms. (Perhaps he’s studied Mao Zedong’s essay “On Contradiction.”)

“So long as the state exists there is no freedom,” Lenin declared. “When there is freedom, there will be no state.”

That was the ideal. In reality, a whole lot of state emerged. As Signal founder Moxie Marlinspike recently noted, the decentralized dreams of Web3 are yielding to technical and market realities that call for centralization.

Still, a fair number of crypto supporters more or less openly cheer the idea, to borrow Friedrich Engels’ phrase, of “the withering away of the state.” At the very least, they’re hoping banks and regulators do some withering away.

“We don’t need the financial institutions that we have today,” Dorsey said in June at a bitcoin conference in Miami (if that’s not redundant).

Will that leave a financial system free from the clutches of the wolves of Wall Street — or just a new set of predators, funded by Sand Hill Road? Another Vladimir, this one with the surname Tenev, said he was inspired to start his online brokerage by Occupy Wall Street. We know how that turned out.

In the 2005 book “What the Dormouse Said,” John Markoff drew a line from the ’60s counterculture to the growth of the personal computer industry. That line could easily be extended forward and backwards, from the revolutionary ferment that Marx and Engels sowed to today’s crypto-communists.

That’s a connection Tom Goldenberg, a fintech startup founder who now works at McKinsey, explored in a 2018 essay detailing the similarities between Marx and bitcoin’s mysterious creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, who launched the crypto revolution.

“Marx advocated for a stateless system, where the worker controlled the means of production,” he said. “Satoshi sought to remove financial intermediaries — the banks and credit card companies that controlled the world's flow of value.”

But while Marx and Satoshi both “articulated a reasoned, well-thought-out vision of the future,” Goldenberg added, “neither had the power to predict how their ideas would influence others or be implemented. And neither could control their own creations.”

Visualize whirled peas

So inevitably there’s the squabbling over who should be at the vanguard of the revolution. The debates over whether this person or that company is Web3 enough call to mind other tests of ideological purity.

Pascal Gauthier, CEO of Ledger, the hardware crypto wallet company, spoke dismissively of “Web2 companies trying to become Web3 companies.” Gavin Wood, the Ethereum co-founder whose new company Polkadot is looking to build a blockchain of blockchains, dismissed Coinbase as just another “Web2 entity.” It might remind some of Lenin sorting his fellow communists into “hards” and “softs.”

In the Leninist version of the crypto culture war, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong would likely be branded a Web3 “soft.” Responding to Marlinspike’s essay, he defended centralized exchanges as a “proxy to decentralized data.” Armstrong also recently bought a home in Los Angeles for $133 million.

Can’t we just get along? Isn’t crypto all about solidarity?

Dorsey tried to make this argument at another bitcoin event over the summer, when he said what inspired him about bitcoin was “the community driving it,” which reminded him of “the early internet.”

“My hope is that it creates ... or helps create world peace,” he added.

So pick up your guitar, and picture Jack leading the crypto faithful — Elon, maybe even Marc if they can reconcile — in an updated version of the beloved Lennon anthem:

“All we are saying is

Give bitcoin a chance

All we are saying is

Give crypto a chance …”

It’s a nice vision. But we’ll leave the last word to Churchill.

What was his ultimate diss to the crypto-communists of that era? That they wouldn’t admit what kind of world they really sought. A crypto-communist, he said, was "one who has not the moral courage to explain the destination for which he is making.”

Fintech

Apple's new payments tech won't kill Square

It could be used in place of the Square dongle, but it's far short of a full-fledged payments service.

The Apple system would reportedly only handle contactless payments.

Photo: Nathan Dumlao/Unsplash

Apple is preparing a product to enable merchants to accept contactless payments via iPhones without additional hardware, according to Bloomberg.

While this may seem like a move to compete with Block and its Square merchant unit in point-of-sale payments, that’s unlikely. The Apple service is using technology from its acquisition of Mobeewave in 2020 that enables contactless payments using NFC technology.

Keep Reading Show less
Tomio Geron

Tomio Geron ( @tomiogeron) is a San Francisco-based reporter covering fintech. He was previously a reporter and editor at The Wall Street Journal, covering venture capital and startups. Before that, he worked as a staff writer at Forbes, covering social media and venture capital, and also edited the Midas List of top tech investors. He has also worked at newspapers covering crime, courts, health and other topics. He can be reached at tgeron@protocol.com or tgeron@protonmail.com.

Sponsored Content

A CCO’s viewpoint on top enterprise priorities in 2022

The 2022 non-predictions guide to what your enterprise is working on starting this week

As Honeywell’s global chief commercial officer, I am privileged to have the vantage point of seeing the demands, challenges and dynamics that customers across the many sectors we cater to are experiencing and sharing.

This past year has brought upon all businesses and enterprises an unparalleled change and challenge. This was the case at Honeywell, for example, a company with a legacy in innovation and technology for over a century. When I joined the company just months before the pandemic hit we were already in the midst of an intense transformation under the leadership of CEO Darius Adamczyk. This transformation spanned our portfolio and business units. We were already actively working on products and solutions in advanced phases of rollouts that the world has shown a need and demand for pre-pandemic. Those included solutions in edge intelligence, remote operations, quantum computing, warehouse automation, building technologies, safety and health monitoring and of course ESG and climate tech which was based on our exceptional success over the previous decade.

Keep Reading Show less
Jeff Kimbell
Jeff Kimbell is Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer at Honeywell. In this role, he has broad responsibilities to drive organic growth by enhancing global sales and marketing capabilities. Jeff has nearly three decades of leadership experience. Prior to joining Honeywell in 2019, Jeff served as a Partner in the Transformation Practice at McKinsey & Company, where he worked with companies facing operational and financial challenges and undergoing “good to great” transformations. Before that, he was an Operating Partner at Silver Lake Partners, a global leader in technology and held a similar position at Cerberus Capital LP. Jeff started his career as a Manufacturing Team Manager and Engineering Project Manager at Procter & Gamble before becoming a strategy consultant at Bain & Company and holding executive roles at Dell EMC and Transamerica Corporation. Jeff earned a B.S. in electrical engineering at Kansas State University and an M.B.A. at Dartmouth College.
China

Why does China's '996' overtime culture persist?

A Tencent worker’s open criticism shows why this work schedule is hard to change in Chinese tech.

Excessive overtime is one of the plights Chinese workers are grappling with across sectors.

Photo: VCG/VCG via Getty Images

Workers were skeptical when Chinese Big Tech called off its notorious and prevalent overtime policy: “996,” a 12-hour, six-day work schedule. They were right to be: A recent incident at gaming and social media giant Tencent proves that a deep-rooted overtime culture is hard to change, new policy or not.

Defiant Tencent worker Zhang Yifei, who openly challenged the company’s overtime culture, reignited wide discussion of the touchy topic this week. What triggered Zhang's criticism, according to his own account, was his team’s positive attitude toward overtime. His team, which falls under WeCom — a business communication and office collaboration tool similar to Slack — announced its in-house Breakthrough Awards. The judges’ comments to one winner highly praised them for logging “over 20 hours of intense work nonstop,” to help meet the deadline for launching a marketing page.

Keep Reading Show less
Shen Lu

Shen Lu covers China's tech industry.

Boost 2

Can Matt Mullenweg save the internet?

He's turning Automattic into a different kind of tech giant. But can he take on the trillion-dollar walled gardens and give the internet back to the people?

Matt Mullenweg, CEO of Automattic and founder of WordPress, poses for Protocol at his home in Houston, Texas.
Photo: Arturo Olmos for Protocol

In the early days of the pandemic, Matt Mullenweg didn't move to a compound in Hawaii, bug out to a bunker in New Zealand or head to Miami and start shilling for crypto. No, in the early days of the pandemic, Mullenweg bought an RV. He drove it all over the country, bouncing between Houston and San Francisco and Jackson Hole with plenty of stops in national parks. In between, he started doing some tinkering.

The tinkering is a part-time gig: Most of Mullenweg’s time is spent as CEO of Automattic, one of the web’s largest platforms. It’s best known as the company that runs WordPress.com, the hosted version of the blogging platform that powers about 43% of the websites on the internet. Since WordPress is open-source software, no company technically owns it, but Automattic provides tools and services and oversees most of the WordPress-powered internet. It’s also the owner of the booming ecommerce platform WooCommerce, Day One, the analytics tool Parse.ly and the podcast app Pocket Casts. Oh, and Tumblr. And Simplenote. And many others. That makes Mullenweg one of the most powerful CEOs in tech, and one of the most important voices in the debate over the future of the internet.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Entertainment

Spoiler alert: We’re already in the beta-metaverse

300 million people use metaverse-like platforms — Fortnite, Roblox and Minecraft — every month. That equals the total user base of the internet in 1999.

A lot of us are using platforms that can be considered metaverse prototypes.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

What does it take to build the metaverse? What building blocks do we need, how can companies ensure that the metaverse is going to be inclusive, and how do we know that we have arrived in the 'verse?

This week, we convened a panel of experts for Protocol Entertainment’s first virtual live event, including Epic Games Unreal Engine VP and GM Marc Petit, Oasis Consortium co-founder and President Tiffany Xingyu Wang and Emerge co-founder and CEO Sly Lee.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.

Enterprise

Lyin’ AI: OpenAI launches new language model despite toxic tendencies

Research company OpenAI says this year’s language model is less toxic than GPT-3. But the new default, InstructGPT, still has tendencies to make discriminatory comments and generate false information.

The new default, called InstructGPT, still has tendencies to make discriminatory comments and generate false information.

Illustration: Pixabay; Protocol

OpenAI knows its text generators have had their fair share of problems. Now the research company has shifted to a new deep-learning model it says works better to produce “fewer toxic outputs” than GPT-3, its flawed but widely-used system.

Starting Thursday, a new model called InstructGPT will be the default technology served up through OpenAI’s API, which delivers foundational AI into all sorts of chatbots, automatic writing tools and other text-based applications. Consider the new system, which has been in beta testing for the past year, to be a work in progress toward an automatic text generator that OpenAI hopes is closer to what humans actually want.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins