►
From YouTube: ESPA Module - Vision of Legal in the Future
Description
Jonathan Dotan (Founding Director) with Starling Lab discusses the vision of legal in the future with history in the context at the Enterprise Storage Provider Accelerator (ESPA) bootcamp week that took place in February 2022.
Data is growing at an incredible speed and much of this data is archived and/or simply lost by enterprises. Our program will accelerate net-new Enterprise Storage Providers into the ecosystem, using a Web3 protocol with an impressive incentive model called Filecoin.
Learn more at:
Sign-up: https://web3espa.io
Landing Page: https://m.fil.org/espa-bootcamp
Follow ESPA:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/web3ESPA
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/web3espa/
A
A
So
let
me
take
off
my
legal
hat
and
I'm
going
to
give
you
the
best
legal
lesson
I
possibly
can
by
actually
explaining
to
you
why
all
this
matters
and
if
we
can
understand
actually
the
basis
for
how
tokenization
works
and
why
it's
such
an
important
evolution
in
the
internet.
I
think
we
can
answer
all
the
legal
questions
that
we
need
to
answer
so
all
right.
So,
first
a
little
bit
about
myself.
A
A
So
this
phrase,
which
was
kicked
off
by
bill
hinman
in
june
of
2018,
followed
the
ico
craze
and
his
speech
that
he
gave
was
really
the
most
definitive
evidence
that
we
had
about
how
the
sec
was
going
to
think
about
the
evolution
of
tokens
going
from
things
that
might
be
securities
at
their
start.
Things
like
bitcoin
and
ethereum,
which
the
sec
has
ruled,
are
utilities
and
they've
gone
beyond
an
investment
contract
and
the
way
in
which
they've
made
that
designation.
A
The
way
they've
drawn
that
line
is
they've,
looked
at
how
decentralized
those
networks
are,
and
so
here's
here's,
the
the
dense
paragraph,
there's
no
reason
to
read
the
whole
thing.
So,
let's
just
break
it
apart
and
let's
go
through
it
step
by
step
so
stu
I'll.
Have
you
read
the
first,
the
first
bit
thank.
A
A
It
means
that
you
have
not
centralized
the
coordination
of
the
network
through
a
set
of
individuals,
but
instead,
you've
spread
it
out
and
you've
been
able
to
provide
as
much
value
to
what
they
call
the
edges
of
the
network,
to
the
stakeholders
of
the
network
not
to
principals
or
to
managers.
This
is
it.
This
is
the
key
when
you
think
about,
when
you're
going
to
sit
there
and
try
to
create
the
legal
basis
for
how
you
might
create
a
token
on
the
basis
of
whatever
you're
doing
or
how
you're
working
within
the
falcon
ecosystem.
A
This
is
exactly
the
strategy
that
you're
going
to
rely
on,
and
so,
when
you
think
about
it,
this
is
core
because
there's
actually
something
really
cool
about
this.
It's
not
just
the
legal
basis
for
interpretation,
but
it's
actually
also
how
tokens
are
architected
right,
they're
meant
to
be
diffusely,
validated
they're
meant
to
be
diffusely
distributed,
and
so
decentralization
is
a
core
design
of
the
system
and
one
might
think
of
it
as
a
goal
of
what
this
whole
project
is
all
about.
A
Others
might
consider
it
something:
that's
well,
maybe
a
little
bit
just
more
convenient
it's
a
hack.
So
if
I
can
sufficiently
decentralize-
and
I
can
kind
of
skirt
securities
regulation
right
and
maybe
the
last
one
is
maybe
it's
an
opportunity-
maybe
it's
an
opportunity
to
think
differently
about
how
you
can
actually
make
money
in
this
space.
More
importantly,
it
might
be
an
opportunity
if
you
actually
evolve
the
internet
as
we
know
it,
and
it's
that
last
part
that
I
want
to
talk
to
you
about
today,
because
I
think
that's
why
most
of
us
are
here.
A
A
A
I
spent
about
25
years
working
in
the
tech
space
and
I
thought
I
knew
actually
the
origin
story
of
the
internet
and
then
I
started
to
research
and
I
realized.
Actually,
I
had
no
idea
how
it
all
began,
so
I
want
to
share
with
you
this
little
story
because
I
think
it
illuminates
actually
how
decentralization
was
there
from
the
very
beginning
of
how
the
internet
was
conceived.
A
A
A
So
one
was
essentially
trying
to
replace
humans.
The
other
one
was
trying
to
help
humans
and
it's
a
fascinating
history
here,
because
actually,
the
augment
intelligence
framework,
which
was
the
main
product
of
the
augment
intelligence
lab,
has
been
kind
of
forgotten
about
in
history,
and
I
stumbled
upon
this-
and
I
was
like
oh
my
god.
This
is.
This
is
truly
one
of
the
most
exceptional
documents
that
we
have
because
in
it
it
conceived
of
two
related
technologies.
A
A
It
was
a
pretty
revolutionary
concept
back
in
the
early
60s
when
this
was
written,
and
the
second
was
that
those
personal
computers
would
be
effective
only
if
they
were
networked
with
each
other.
So
that
means
that
the
trajectory
of
the
personal
computer
and
the
internet
they
were
actually
they
start
at
the
very
very
same
time
and
so
think
about
what
that
meant.
At
that
point,
this
was
considered
a
personal
computer
back
in
when
this
document
was
written
and
by
the
way
that
here
these
are
it's
like
the
keyboard
and
the
screen.
A
One
was
this
thing
called
a
mouse
which
allowed
you
basically
to
have
a
way
of
coordinating
how
to
click
things
in
a
graphical
user
interface,
and
then
second
thing
was
that
you
needed
a
screen,
pretty
cool
right
and
these
were
presented
in
1968
and
what
was
considered
the
mother
of
all
demos
and
it
pretty
much.
Was
this
cambrian
explosion
of
everything
that
we
know
today
about
personal
computer
and
the
internet?
A
A
It
came
out
of
a
sense
of
obligation
about
how
information
needed
to
be
shared.
When
you
look
at
a
variety
of
all
the
different
protocols
that
were
created
that
came
out
of
inventions
from
xerox
park,
you
have
to
remember
that
there
was
a
set
of
values
that
underscored
all
of
these
inventions.
They
just
come
out
of
nowhere.
A
These
were
people
that
had
a
certain
belief
about
how
they
wanted
to
create
this
network,
and
central
to
that
was,
of
course,
you
could
think
about
it
as
like
a
software
code
right,
but
equally,
you
could
argue
that
there
was
a
moral
code.
That
was
a
part
of
that,
and
I
like
to
think
of
this
as
like
the
internet
code
right,
which
is
a
combination
of
the
two.
So
let's
look
at
what
this
is
well,
the
first
piece
of
the
internet
code
was
surprise.
Surprise
is
meant
to
be
decentralized.
A
The
second
was
that
you
need
to
have
neutrality
in
the
network,
so
that
meant
that
there
could
be
no
discrimination
within
the
network
itself.
The
nodes
were
simply
meant
to
pass
the
information
between
each
other
meant
that
the
nodes
also
then
therefore
had
to
be
interoperable
so
that
if
one
of
them
went
down
another
one
could
pick
up
or
the
other
left
off.
A
And
lastly
remember
this
came
from
the
augment
intelligence
lab,
which
meant
there
was
a
belief
around
these
technologies
were
meant
to
empower
end.
Consumers,
not
corporations,
and
so
therefore
there
was
this
really
strong
idea
about
personal
liberty
right
personal
computing,
personal
liberty,
okay,
so
that,
basically
is
a
set
of
values.
You
can
see
reflected
really
well
in
the
antenna
principle,
which
really
is
what
guides
the
internet
as
we
know
it.
It
essentially
is
the
basis
for
decentralization
and
here's
how
it
works.
A
A
A
Now.
The
object
of
their
contention
here
was
that
comcast
and
major
isps
would
be
the
problem,
and
so
they
were
fighting
to
preserve
the
neutrality
of
those
entities,
but
they
missed
something
along
the
way,
because
what
happened
was
is
that
in
preserving
the
neutrality
of
the
network?
Something
else
occurred,
which
is
you
have
platforms
and
they
took
network
neutrality
and
they
used
it
for
their
own
advantage
to
create
essentially
smarter
systems.
A
This
is
not
what
we
wanted
and,
and
you
go
back
to
xerox
park.
You
look
at
these
ideals.
The
current
state
of
the
internet
would
have
been
an
abomination
to
the
original
inventors
and,
and
you
could
think
of
almost
like
philosophers
right
of
the
internet
and
many
of
those
people.
They
ended
up
not
making
a
lot
of
money,
but
one
did-
and
I
think
if
you
trace
the
journey
of
this
individual,
you
now
start
to
understand
actually
how
we
have
the
world
that
we
have
today.
A
So
it
starts
with
this
guy
named
bob
metcalf
is
named
familiar
to
anyone
here,
stu,
I
know
you'd
know,
but
the
others
all
right
so
he's
one
of
the
co-creators
of
the
ethernet
standard
and
and
the
idea
that
he
put
forward
was
this.
This
concept
that,
basically
you
as
you
had
a
network,
it
would
grow
not
linearly,
but
exponentially
more
users
came
into
that
network.
A
A
A
But-
and
you
know
I
can
go
on
and
on,
but
I
think
that
the
problem
here
is
that
if
you
go-
and
you
just
say-
okay
well
we're
just
going
to
go
and
apply
this
over
to
something
like
bitcoin
or
to
tokens.
That's
a
really
bad
idea,
because
you're,
essentially
two
things
are
now
competing
with
each
other.
You
have
a
centralized
network
and
a
decentralized
network,
and
the
question
is
like
well
which
one
should
win.
What
philosophy
is
better
or
more
importantly,
as
I
started
this
discussion
legally
speaking,
what's
the
best
approach?
A
Well,
I'm
going
to
argue
to
you
that
metcalf
was
wrong
on
many
levels.
First
of
all,
he
was
wrong,
I'm
in
a
kind
of
a
hilarious
way,
because
he
actually
never
really
understood
the
power
of
the
internet,
and
he
was
one
of
the
naysayers
in
the
early
1990s
and
he
said
that
if
the
internet
didn't
explode
by
1996,
I
think
it
was
that
he
would
eat
his
own
words,
and
so
he
actually
did
he
put
it
in
a
blender
and
you
drank
it.
A
It's
pretty
awesome
because
he's
honest
and
secondly,
when
you
start
to
look
at
the
economics
of
it
actually
network
effects,
although
they
are
powerful,
medcap's
law,
which
is
just
about
hyper
growth,
is
completely
wrong-headed.
There's
just
enough
math
at
this
point
to
prove
that
that's
actually
just
not
how
it
works.
The
number
of
nodes
is
actually
not
what's
important:
it's
the
quality
of
the
nodes,
it's
the
community,
that's
around
it
and
that's
really
important
and
and
the
reason
why
I
think
this
is
this
whole
cookie
crumbled.
A
Pretty
quick
is
because
ultimately,
metcalf
was
not
created.
He
wasn't
an
economist.
He
was
actually
he
created
this
principle
as
a
sales
tactic
to
help
convince
people
to
essentially
buy
ethernet
said:
hey,
look!
If
you've
invested
in
this
really
expensive,
like
seven
thousand
dollar
printer
laser
printer,
then
you
may
want
to
connect
it
to
different
terminals,
and
so
by
doing
that,
you
can
basically
amortize
some
of
your
investments
and
the
more
you
advertise
the
better
so
as
a
sales
tactic
sure.
A
A
It's
really
important
to
understand
who
gilder
is
because
he's
a
persistent
figure
within
history,
because
he's
always
been
kind
of
on
the
cusp
of
technology
analysis
and
revolutions
et
cetera,
but
I
like
to
go
back
to
gilder's
original
work
in
the
70s
to
really
expose.
What
I
think
is
the
problems
with
his
thinking.
A
Oh
well
he's
just
an
economist
he's,
not
an
economist
he's,
actually
he's
got
a
political
agenda
and
he
has
a
political
agenda
that
is
translated
into
a
very
dangerous
line
of
economic
thinking
and
metcalfe's
law
was
anointed
in
this
publication
that
he
wrote
in
the
late
80s
early
90s
and
it
basically
talked,
is
really
crazy.
Like
pseudoscience,
where
essentially
talked
about
how
ethernet's
core
architecture
and
fault
tolerance
was
a
confirmation
that
capitalism
was
somehow
like
the
dominant
way
of
creating
a
political
economy,
and
it
proved
that
socialism
was
basically
impossible.
A
Okay,
whatever
george
that's
insane,
I
can't
make
that
leap
with
you,
but
he's
continued
these
ideas
and
and
I'd
say,
embedded
within
his
concepts
or
that
he
believes,
like
his
protege
peter
thiel,
that
monopolies
are
a
good
thing.
That's
really
what
you
need
to
boil
it
down.
He
believes
that
centralization
is
a
core
competency
of
a
business.
Competition
is
for
losers,
as
teal
is
kind
of
famously
saying.
A
I
don't
think
so,
and
I
don't
necessarily
think
that
people
in
this
room
agree
with
that
either,
because
there
is
an
alternative
and
when
you
look
at
actually
how
the
first
web
server
was
set
up
for
storage,
it
was
not
an
enterprise
server,
it
was
actually
a
personal
computer.
It
was
a
next
computer.
A
This
is
tim
berners-lee
machine,
it's
kind
of
cool,
actually
there's
a
sticker
on
there.
That
says,
don't
don't
turn
this
off.
This
is
a
server
right.
It's
a
personal
computer,
all
right,
so
why
did
I
go
down
all
this
history?
Lane
is
because,
ultimately,
I
want
to
try
to
bring
these
values
and
try
to
say
to
them.
A
The
question
is
whether
or
not
if
we
can
actually
share
in
the
benefits
of
decentralization,
I'm
not
sure,
but
let
me
give
you
my
best
pitch
as
to
how
so
here,
here's
looking
at
the
future
how
this
could
work
so,
the
first,
the
traditional
network,
effects
that
we
think
about
as
the
number
of
users
grow
in
theory,
the
utility
goes.
Why
do
you
need
any
of
that?
It's
because,
ultimately,
you
need
to
get
out
of
this
bootstrapping
problem.
You
need
to
get
the
most
number
of
users
out.
A
Tokens
provide
a
different
approach
to
bootstrapping
what
they
do.
Is
they
start
off
by
giving
a
high
financial
incentive
to
early
adopters
of
the
platform
and,
in
theory
over
time
those
financial
incentives
go
down,
but
the
utility
of
the
platform
at
that
point
has
been
bootstrapped
and
we
can
get
this
escape
velocity
and
boom
you're
in
good
shape.
This
is
how
you
guys
are
benefiting
from
this
right.
The
block
rewards
that
are
here
this
is
this:
is
the
function
of
what
they're
serving
to
do.
A
The
question
is
whether
or
not
we
can
see
these
benefits,
not
just
as
things
that
provide
utility
but
actually
provide
new
forms
of
innovation,
and
this
is
where
I
want
to
close,
which
is
that
I
think
that
what
you
can
actually
do
is
you
can
provide
not
just
sufficient
decentralization
in
order
to
get
around
sec
rules,
but
you
can
think
about
decentralization
as
a
means
to
forming
a
new
business
model
and
a
new
corporate
form.
So
what
would
that
look
like
one
think
about
transparency?
A
This
is
a
core
concept
around
ledgers
in
the
blockchain,
and
transparency
really
means
that
you
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
as
little
information
asymmetry
as
possible
and
there's
alignment
here,
not
just
on
a
philosophical
level,
but
actually
on
a
legal
level.
Right
as
we
read
before,
that's
one
of
the
key
components
to
making
sure
that
tokens
are
not
considered
an
investment
contract.
A
It
means
if
you're
giving
someone
a
token
you
have
to
ensure
that
they
know
enough
about
the
platform
and
that,
secondly,
that
they
have
this,
which
is
that
they
can
actually
collaborate,
and
they
can
do
so
in
an
interoperable
way
and
so
concepts
around
centralization
of
power.
Verticalization
of
power
lock-in
into
networks.
Those
are
key
kind
of
web
2.0
strategies
in
web
3.
A
A
But
then,
if
you
keep
up
product
quality,
you
don't
just
extract
from
those
users,
that's
the
key
to
retention
and
then,
finally,
if
you
can
diversify
and
not
just
concentrate
wealth
into
smaller
groups
of
users,
you
can
then
really
get
a
more
resilient
network,
and
you
may
think
that
this
is
just
some
high-minded
ideas,
but
actually
these
are
the
keys
to
sufficient
decentralization.
These
are
the
atomic
units,
essentially
of
strategies
of
how
you
think
about
sufficient
decentralization,
and
so
let
me
bring
it
home
into
something
very
practical.
A
A
A
Can
you
use
them
to
help
bring
together
your
community,
and
I
think,
if
you
ask
yourself
those
questions,
you
will
ultimately
have
a
more
robust
business,
because
that
is
the
native
web
3
approach
to
business.
It's
not
about
creating
new
monopolies
and
new
modes
of
centralization
is
about
thinking
about
how
these
business
models
can
decentralize
and
therefore
achieve
those
goals.