CircularityLabs Design the future you want to live in Tue, 14 May 2019 12:18:59 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Part 2: Moral values as an asset in an age of capitalization of immoral bio-psycho-social-societal traits. Tue, 14 May 2019 12:18:58 +0000 My last post covered the basic context and problems of our current era of surveillance capitalism. This post will propose a solution to this problem, involving multiple cooperative institutions, incentive structures and monetary flows. Problem: Shortage of feedback on personal actions and transactions. Due to existing incentives for corporations to market predominately part-truths or false […]

The post Part 2: Moral values as an asset in an age of capitalization of immoral bio-psycho-social-societal traits. appeared first on CircularityLabs.

My last post covered the basic context and problems of our current era of surveillance capitalism. This post will propose a solution to this problem, involving multiple cooperative institutions, incentive structures and monetary flows.
Problem: Shortage of feedback on personal actions and transactions. Due to existing incentives for corporations to market predominately part-truths or false information there is a lack of transparency in value chains.
I will have to make some assumptions for a correct setup to give a solution to this problem.
Assumption (0): People want to behave according to their feeling and rationale of what is right and wrong. Bias from uneducated intentions, poor judgement and actions one has no control over, does not change this fact.
Assumption (1): Morality is personal and subjective and is based on personal DNA, biology, social and societal context. Everyone is free to act in their own preferred way and is not forced to adhere to something such as ‘objective’ or ‘consensus based’ morality.
Assumption (2): A person is able to have an ever contemporary concrete set of moral values. A person is able to develop this set of moral values trough a proces of experience and informed guidance, resulting in a set of testable hypotheses. Biases from guidance and experience are identifiable and can be educated against.
Assumption (3): An average consumer can only spend a fixed amount of time and effort on the judgement of their own action. Therefore supply chain data has to be judged based on values of a collective one can subscribe to or follow. Biases from blind trust in and wrong intentions of those collectives can be identified and educated against.
So what are these traits that are currently predominately, immorally so, capitalized?
I would argue that biological, psychological or even social and societal traits that exist in humans can be extrapolated to function for keeping in tact good and bad traits. Or even sustainable and peaceful against unsustainable society.
It is for example our biological and psychological predisposition that we prefer comfort over suffering. This comfort is also in today’s world a ‘selling point’, something that would get marketed to attract consumers. But is this longing for comfort justifiable? Do we really need more comfort, or is this longing of ours fed by the ones that want to capitalize it? And more importantly, is this trait of seeking comfort to such an extend beneficial to our society? Or does it create a system that has little room for moral behaviour and is thus unsustainable? A trap of ever increasing comfort so to say.
In my view it the same biological and psychological, or social and societal predisposition that can act as enactor for sustainability and peace in society. Traits such as empathy or altruism are in my view these enactors, as they stimulate and account for moral behaviour, and thus in the end a sustainable society.
What would happen if we chose to capitalize the traits that stimulate moral behaviour? What if businesses would be rewarded when they stimulate moral behaviour? Would only those enacting parties deserve the right to exist and market their products?
System proposal:
I will propose such a system for you to be critical on, reflect upon and provide feedback on.
 Requirements for such a system are:
(1): Clear personal values for every participant in the system.
(2): Guidance and information provision to create clear personal values. This can be provided by cooperative action, so no central party has influence on what is considered as personal values. However guidance will introduce bias, as collective values might not align with personal values.
(3): Quantitative transaction data from value chains & qualitative context data from value chains. This could be provided by every player or node in a chain, hence is receptive to bias related to personal gain conflicting with gain of the system.
(4): Verification and authentication of value chain data provided. This can be also provided by cooperative action and is also receptive to bias related to personal gain conflicting with gain of the system.
(5): Feedback to the consumer on the fit or alignment of their action to the set of clear personal value hypotheses.
(6): Creation of that feedback trough the moral judgment of transactions and accompanied chain data. This would include on one hand testing those clear values against the judgements of chain data from the collaborative you subscribe to. On the other hand this would need to include cooperative moral judgement of chain data based on consensus and disagreement. One would be able to subscribe to or follow a judgement collaborative, a function now often filled in by quality marks or NGO’s. Think of how democracy works in relation to following judgements of collaborative parties. This is however a weak link, as trust on the party you subscribe to is introduced. But this design choice acts to prevent a person from making every judgment regarding the value chains for themselves, as this would be to time consuming.
More interestingly so, this design choice also prevents judgement of the value chain data to be averaged out, as this could mean that your personal values are tested against a consensus based average of what is judged as moral in that value chain. This ultimately creates freedom of choice by design, instead of introducing things as personal guilt when one not adheres to the consensus based average, which could possibly results in trending toward an unwanted normative average of what ought to be moral. Thus trust is introduced to prevent this.
(7): Oversight and assessment of moral value chain judgements and collaborative intentions. This moral judgements of value chains by collaborative and cooperative has to have some form of structured oversight and assessment of those judgements, as it is receptive to bias related to personal gain and objectivity conflicting with gain of the system. This oversight cooperative is of course receptive to the same biasses, so again trust is introduced.
(8): Monetary flow and incentive structures. This is based on capitalizing moral enacting traits and a percentage of value extraction per transaction. Extracted value will have several deposits in the system to keep the system in place.

Monetary flow and incentive structures:

Incentives and reward structures and monetary flow structures must exist to keep the system in place. Those include the following:
(1): Consumer investment. Cost of purchasing a product.
(2): Consumer income from capitalization of moral value set data. After the guidance procedure to create a set of moral values, consumers could be able to sell this data to the cooperation, which in turn uses that data to create profit.
(3): Producers in the value chain have to apriori invest in ethical products and ethical production context.
(4): The cooperative action that guides one in finding a clear set of moral values has to be incentivized to deliver quality and do so striving for objectivity.
(5): The collaborative groups that judge value chain data have to be incentivized to also deliver quality and do so striving for objectivity.
(6): The cooperative value chain data authentication and verification has to be incentivized to deliver quality and do so striving for objectivity.
(7): In store and online feedback mechanisms for the consumers have to be funded.
(8): Consumers will pay some percentage of their initial investment for the use of the system.
(9): This cut will be redistributed to every above point, except for point 3. 

Together this post proposes a system that can be generally applied to any value chain. It’s function is, I think, to remove over capitalization of human traits that have little role to play in creating a sustainable society and incentivize capitalization of traits that can foster sustainable society.
If you notice any fault in my thinking or have any other kind of feedback, please feel welcome to leave a comment. You can find me @mykemmer on twitter or
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

The post Part 2: Moral values as an asset in an age of capitalization of immoral bio-psycho-social-societal traits. appeared first on CircularityLabs.

]]> 0
Moral choice as the product in an age of surveillance capitalism Tue, 14 May 2019 12:17:49 +0000 In an age of surveillance capitalism and hyper personalised data driven marketing, consumers have to protect their selves, their identity and their integrity to their moral standards, while also protecting the integrity of the goods that are purchased. Two subfields of ethics are required for a consumer to make a moral decision. On one hand […]

The post Moral choice as the product in an age of surveillance capitalism appeared first on CircularityLabs.

In an age of surveillance capitalism and hyper personalised data driven marketing, consumers have to protect their selves, their identity and their integrity to their moral standards, while also protecting the integrity of the goods that are purchased.

Two subfields of ethics are required for a consumer to make a moral decision. On one hand that is value chain ethics, to preserve truth and quality in the supply chain and to provide the consumer with the information needed to make a moral decision. On the other hand there is consumer privacy ethics, to protect the consumer from surveillance capitalists and parties with wrong intentions while immersing in a system built to make this moral choice. Because a moral choice requires a wealth of information from both consumers end to suppliers end, protection of this information is important.
But what is a moral choice? What is ethical? What values underlie our stance of what is moral or ethical?

How to different political and ideological paradigms influence these values? In what way can we create consensus about what is ethical while there are multiple parties at stake with different social and cultural influences? How to weigh educated opinions against uneducated opinions? How to identify biasses, assumptions and subjectivity and how to tackle these?

What is our goal here? Do we want to provide parties with a quick and dirty or thorough and thoughtful assay of their ethics (bottom-up)? Do we want to manifest ethical issues on a broader societal level (topdown)?

Shot from Solaris (1972).
Alignment issue
I’d say our first priority is what I would call the alignment issue. Alignment of our moral values and societal ethical values to our day to day actions. To successfully act in the way we want or should act, we need to be clear about what that constitutes, so this is testable. Secondly we need to know the full implications of our action, to test this against our own moral and ethical set of values.

Since finding out what your values are precisely and how to prioritize them is a very complex task, I think we need to trust experts. Following political or ideological experts to assist you with unraveling what your values are, would certainly be a way to make this daunting task less complex, but is of course accompanied by gradual centralization of power to experts.

To know the full implications of our actions, a qualitative phenomena, we need to divide this wholesome action into separate parts. What is for example the effect of your action on the environment, on financial systems, on political power or on the people that are involved in the value chain? When these parts are identified, a clearer view on circumstances and issues is possible, which can be used to test against your moral and ethical set. This also is a daunting task with many social, cultural, political, physical and ideological barriers experienced in the collection of reliable information.

Sovereign individual identity problem

The second priority, tightly bound to the first one, is the protection of the sovereign identity of the individual.

Based on western values like individualism and freedom, EU broad laws like GDPR have come into play protecting this individual sovereignty. Hyper personalised data driven marketing strategies challenge the ability of the individual to judge the integrity of products, which is overwhelmed by obscure and un-nuanced marketing input.

Surveillance capitalists should not be able to monetize the judgement of individuals or sell the moral choice.

To preserve a clear judgement, data identifiable to the natural person need to be protected, so it can not be used to mislead. Individuals need to own their data, need to be able to access, delete and change it at all times, in combination with for example being in control of who can access the data.
Blockchain can in an array of situations serve as a suitable solution to problems as Centralization of power, Obscure value chains or Data vulnerability. Data ownership, Access, Security, Verification and
Authentication, Governance and Identity are the main pillars important for ethical implementation of blockchains identified by Beeck Centre for Innovation at Georgetown University. Within these topics lies a wide array of ethical considerations (Lapointe, Fishbane, 2018).

Moving forward

To conclude, it is clear there is a need for focus on ethics. But how are we to tackle this in this fast paced landscape, with little governance itself? Please let me know your ideas on how to get everyone on board on this topic.

You can email me at or find me at twitter @mykemmer.

Thanks for reading.

The post Moral choice as the product in an age of surveillance capitalism appeared first on CircularityLabs.

]]> 0
The decentralization of authority Thu, 06 Sep 2018 15:05:27 +0000 The post The decentralization of authority appeared first on CircularityLabs.



Throughout history, human civilization has used centralization of authority in order to increase efficiency and maintain control over larger groups of people. In recent years, technology has allowed us for the first time in human history to manage larger groups of people, without being dependent on centralization of authority. This paper analyses various societal structures that have been used throughout history, going from very centralized towards completely distributed in recent years. This paper analyses the effects new technologies, like the internet and blockchain, have on the decentralization of our society. And finally, this paper will make an estimated guess as to where these developments might lead to in the near future and what implications this has on society and businesses.



The History of Centralization of authority

During the last thousands of years, human civilization has evolved from small groups of hunters and gatherers towards the globally connected world we live in today. Throughout history, human kind has been increasingly more able to maintain control over larger groups of people. Every time societies expanded, some form of hierarchical centralization of authority was used to maintain control over the larger population group. This is necessary as humans are by nature chaotic beings which tend to compete with each other and make decisions based on personal gains. (Bryner, 2010). In order to cooperate we need a single source of truth, a single direction we all work together towards in order to achieve things beyond our self-interest.

With centralization of authority, a single source of truth is achieved with the use of by force. In a hierarchical system, a single source of truth is determined and pushed down through the chain of command by the central authority through punishment and reward (perc, 2016).  The larger part of a population is thereby forced to work in the interest of a few.  As a result, Centralization of authority has allowed us to bring about amazing global accomplishments however, almost always at the cost of violence and human extortion (Newworldencyclopedia, sd).

The Dynasty of china

A great examples of this was the Qin dynasty, the first dynasty of Imperial China. After about 2000 years of fierce rivalry between the many different warlords in ancient china, Qin Shi Huan became the first man to unite them all and create the first empire of China around 220 BC (Bachman, 2007). In order to maintain control over such a large area, Qin Shi Huan was known for its bureaucracy and strict autocratic control

The Qin sought to create a state unified by centralized political power supported by a large military and a stable economy. To increase its power, the Qin decided to undercut landowners to gain direct administrative control over peasantry, who comprised the overwhelming majority of the population. This centralization of authority allowed for ambitious projects involving hundreds of thousands of peasants and convicts. The greatest example of such projects was connecting the walls along the northern border, eventually developing into the great wall of China (Beck, 2003).

Centralization throughout history

There are many more examples throughout history of humans centralizing their control to increase the range of influence in order to achieve large accomplishments at the cost of human extortion. The Egyptian societies, The roman empire, almost all religions, Hitler, Napoleon, just to name a few. However, as we develop ourselves more as a society, we developed more efficient ways of communicating and spreading information. New ways of communication and more sophisticated societal structures allowed for large scale power centralization to work, with the use of increasingly less force.

Around the end of the 20th century, our whole world became completely centralized with very little need for violent enforcement. Rather than using force, power and authority is maintained through centralization of information, centralization of money and centralization of institutions through global trade agreements and pacts. As such, our information came directly from a few centralized senders. Our choices for attaining information was between a newspaper, tv and radio, which where all controlled by a view large organizations.

With the rising American hegemony, also global superpowers became increasingly centralized as everything was brought to us by the USA. We formed global pacts like NATO, OPEC, NAFTA and EU with centralized control over increasingly larger areas (Kirk, 2017). On top of that, our global economy got tied together with the use of central banks, IMF and the world bank. This allowed us to endebt nations and manipulate their currency supply to further increase centralized control. Also, our organizations became increasingly centralized. Centralization and vertical integration allowed large corporations to maintain control over larger geographical areas while maintaining their efficiency (Lintern, 20017).

The internet: The beginning of decentralization of authority

With the adoption of the internet, we saw the first real signs of decentralization. Humans were for the first time empowered to spread and share information directly to each other. Instead of only receiving information, we are now able to create and share our own information and get our information from anyone we follow online. Our news and media no longer come from a few centralized sources, but from an aggregation of thousands of different websites, apps and social media influencers.

It is not just our information that got decentralized through the internet. Various platforms emerged which allowed us to share and capitalize on the unused assets of each other. Through platforms like AirBnB and Uber we no longer rely on large corporations to give us access to overnight stays and transportation. By connecting directly to each other we can have access to anything we want often for a much lower cost. This together with all the new technologies, allows the average person to accomplish much more on its own, while being less dependent on organizations (Sundararajan, 2016)

Implications of the decentralization through the internet

The internet has widened our economic reach to a global scale. Together with our increasingly more efficient global infrastructures (World trade Organization, 2008) this allows us to do international business at a fraction of the cost. This radical international connectedness gives most people access to almost the same levels of efficiency and economies of scale. Everyone can order the same products on Alibaba and eBay. In this new economy, competitive advantage therefore isn’t derived from economies of scale, but rather from being the most dynamic and connected (Andrew McAfee, 2012).

This massive global connectivity also causes our business landscape to change at an increasingly faster rate (Matai, 2011). With the rise of disruptive technologies, it has become increasingly less certain whether what works today still works tomorrow. This uncertainty demands a completely different set of skills organizations (Satell, 2013). The extremely high level of uncertainty eradicates the need for strict control and long-term planning. In order to keep up, companies must iterate rapidly and make fast decisions (Ries, 2011).

The rigid old hierarchical structures don’t facilitate these new demands which is why many organizations have adopted a flat decentralized company structure with higher levels of autonomy for the workforce (Martins, 2002). Within a flat company structure, the presence of a strong vision is more important as it provides a single source of truth necessary for the system to function well. Everyone knows the goals and purpose of the organization, allowing them to maintain the same direction while making autonomous independent decisions (Laloux, 2014). As such. Decision making becomes distributed and when conflicts arise, consensus is achieved through open discussion (semler, 2010).



Figure 1  (Laloux, 2014)

A decentralized single source of truth

Online platforms are less centralized than our past organizational structures as they connect people directly with each other and delegate certain powers away from the central authority (Merriam webster, sd). They therefore don’t have a central authority to determine and push down a single source of truth. However, as all communication still flows through a central point, platforms still contain strong elements of centralization.

This is because in a regular database, there is always one central party who owns and controls the data. This owner can determine what happens with the data stored on the servers and what information people see when accessing the servers. This means that users of a platform have to trust owner of the platform to 1) manage and safeguard their data discretely and 2) provide all users of the platform with honest and correct information. In recent years, this has increasingly proven to be an issue for many users as there have been many cases of platforms misusing their position.

On such example is Facebook. As most of us know, all the data we create about ourselves and our friends on Facebook is being stored, extensively analysed and systematically sold to the highest bidder (Lomas, 2018). But, perhaps much more frightening is that Facebook also has the full control to decide who gets to see which information (Theguardian, 2018). They own and manipulate both the upstream and the downstream communication of the system. In fakebooks’ case, this power now allows them influence people to the point that they could manipulate elections (TheGuardian, 2016). One could therefore argue that the internet has in fact ultimately led to more centralization of authority:


Figure 3: (Thomson, 2015)

Blockchain technology

Blockchain can solve this trust issue by distributing the database among all participants of a network, eliminating the need for one central authority to oversee and control the database (see figure 3). Because blockchain is replicated and synchronized on every computer, it is also open and accessible for all participants. These synchronized computers are mostly referred to as nodes in the blockchain network. Additionally, blockchains are immutable, once data is stored it can never be removed.

Because the data is replicated many times, it needs to be small, mostly taking the form of transactions or interactions between nodes on a network. The database is therefore often referred to as a distributed ‘list’, ‘ledger’ of ‘transactions.’ In the case of Bitcoin, the database is used to store and synchronize money transactions between all the nodes in the network. However, blockchain technology holds much broader possibilities. Blockchains can be used to store any type of online transactions or interactions. Deloitte defines blockchain as “a distributed ledger that provides a way for information to be recorded and shared by a community. In this community, each member maintains his own copy of the information, and all members must validate any updates collectively.” (Deloitte, 2017).


 Centralized versus decentralized systems (Woodhead, 2017)

A distributed single source of truth

When someone makes a transaction on the blockchain, the transaction gets uploaded from a node to the global pool of transactions. In order to make sure everybody keeps the same list of transactions, a consensus algorithm elects some sort of leader to bundle these transactions into blocks and upload them to the network (Federico & Zarko, 2018). All nodes in a blockchain verify these latest added transactions on a set of criteria and then copy the latest state of the ledger to their blockchain (Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, 2008). Therefore, within distributed systems, the single source of truth is validated and kept by all the participants of the network.


Figuur 2 (Wallstreettechnologist, 2015)

Smart contracts

Introduced by Vitalik Buterin is the concept of smart contracts (butterin, 2015). With the introduction of smart contracts, not only transactional information, but also logical rules can be added to the blockchain. Smart contracts are made up of computer code that automatically executes certain actions based on a set of criteria (Peters, 2016). Once a smart contract is created, just like any transaction in the blockchain, it can never be removed or altered. This means it will only be executed when the criteria are met. Smart contracts are public, which means everybody can verify that they do as advertised.

Blockchain implications on society and business

Through a combination of blockchain, smart contracts and other new encryption technologies, our future societal structures and communication could become completely distributed. Introduced by M. Greiner and H. Wang is the concept of trust free systems. Within trust free systems, blockchain’s capability to create an immutable, consensually agreed and publicly available record of transactions is utilized to mitigate trust issues in online platforms. Smart contracts allow contractual agreements and dApp functionality to happen automatically without possible interference of third parties. This way, trusting third parties is considered to be obsolete by design of the platform (Greiner & Wang, 2015). When combining many smart contracts, one even has the possibility to create a completely autonomous applications or even a complete organization that runs without any need human interference.

Decentralized online platforms

Instead of relying on a central authority to hold and safeguard our data, every person’s private data can be stored on distributed file storage platform, so they maintain full control over who can see which information (Storj, 2016). If companies want to use people’s data, they now have to pay them directly per unit of data it is willing to share (HARA token, 2018). With the use of “zero-knowledge proofs, users can stay anonymous to the degree they wish, without losing credibility or imposing counter party risks (Hackernoon, 2017).

Transparent supply chain traceability

For traceability to work supply chain actors need to be willing to share and have consensus on information regarding their supply chain transactions (Bosana, 2013). Because competing interests and lack of trust it is therefore often difficult to trace products throughout the supply chain. Blockchain provides opportunities to overcome these challenges and achieve consensus on every transaction between supply chain actors without the need of a third party. As consensus regarding the transactions are immutable and transparent for anyone to see, blockchain can increase trust and transparency for any stakeholder in a supply chains.

Automated trade & finance

In an extensive report by The World Trade Organization titled “Can Blockchain Revolutionize International Trade?”, WTO identifies a wide array of platforms that—according WTO— “leverage blockchain technology and smart contracts to streamline financial flows between buyers, sellers and financiers, and enhance the security, speed, transparency and reliability of supply chain financing” (WTO, 2018) These findings are confirmed by recent studies which demonstrate that blockchain can indeed deliver substantial benefits for all parties involved in financing, by expediting the process and lowering the overall cost of financing programs (Hoffman, Strewe, & Bosia, 2018).

Financial inclusion and income inequality

One of the main promises of blockchain technology is its ability to bring inclusion to the world’s poorest who do not have access to for example financial services. By the latest measurements, there are still 1.7 billion people without an account at a formal financial institution (The World Bank, 2017)The unbanked do not have access to insurance, asset registry or even credible means of identification, leaving them more vulnerable to social, economic or environmental disasters (The World Bank, 2017). The lack of land tenure and formal property titles makes it very difficult for them to use their land as collateral when attempting to access loan capital (FAO, 2015).

With the fast adoption of mobile phones, many of the world’s unbanked can get access to financial services through blockchain technology. Once they are identified and connected to a blockchain address they can build up an immutable track record for trust, providing them with access to identity, affordable loans, financial services and insurances (Worldbank, 2016). It is therefore expected that the worlds poorest can benefit the most from blockchain technology as it provides them with direct solutions to gain the trust needed to participate in the global economy (HARA token, 2018), without depending on third parties like banks and governments. Furthermore, due to the potential disintermediation of authorities and democratization of power blockchain, value within distributed systems is expected to be more equally divided among all participants, potentially reducing the global income inequality (Berggruen, 2018)


Centralization of authority is an age-old phenomenon which has been shaping our society in various ways throughout history. During the last century, the Internet and later blockchain technology provides people with the guidance, direction and trust needed to cooperate on a larger scale, without depending on a central authority. The decentralization of our society through the internet has impacted businesses and society in ways previously unthinkable. We are now at the start of a new evolution that is taking place which is also expected to have radical implications on our society in ways we can’t foresee at the moment. However, with the potential implications currently foreseen, one can conclude that these developments are a good thing they are expected to bring the power in the hands of a view back to the hands of the many. The tools for a decentralized and free society are here, it is now up to us whether the evolution will take place.

Reference List

  • Andrew McAfee, E. B. (2012). Big data: The management revolution. Retrieved from
  • Bachman, D. B. (2007). World and Its Peoples: Eastern and Southern Asia. New York: Marshall Cavendish.
  • Beck, B. B. (2003). Ancient World History-Patterns of Interaction. Mc Dougal Little. doi:0-618-18393-0.
  • Berggruen, N. (2018). Here’s how blockchain can reduce inequality. Retrieved from
  • Bheemaiah, K. (2017). Rethinking Capitalism with the Blockchain. Retrieved from
  • Bosana, T. &. (2013). Food traceability as an integral part of logistics management in food and agricultural supply chain. .
  • Bryner, J. (2010). Men apes competing status. Retrieved from Livescience:
  • butterin, V. (2015). Ethereum whitepaper.
  • CBCnews. (2018). Facebook: Your personal information for sale. Retrieved from
  • Deloitte. (2014). Supply chain transparency. Retrieved from
  • Deloitte. (2017). Blockchain trust economy. Retrieved from
  • Federico, M. B., & Zarko, I. P. (2018). Distributed Ledger Technology: Blockchain. Retrieved from University of Zagreb:
  • Gevers, J. (2014). The four pillars of decenrtalized Society. Retrieved from
  • Gigya. (2017). How Consumers Feel About Data Privacy. Retrieved from 
  • Gmytrasiewicz, P. J. (1992). Decision-theoretic recursive modeling and the coordinated attack problem. College Park, Maryland, , USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
  • Greiner, M., & Wang, H. (2015). Trust-free Systems – a New Research and Design Direction to Handle Trust-Issues in P2P Systems: The Case of Bitcoin. Adoption and Diffusion of Information Technology. AISEL.
  • Hackernoon. (2017). How to prove that you know something, without revealing it? Zero-knowledge proofs, ZCash, Ethereum. Retrieved from Hackernoon:
  • HARA token. (2018). Whitepaper. Retrieved from
  • Hoffman, E., Strewe, U., & Bosia, N. (2018). Supply chain Finance and Blockchain Technology The Case of Reverse Securitisation. Springer.
  • Identiverse. (2018). Zeroknowledge proofs identity proofing and authentication. Retrieved from
  • Kirk, M. (2017). Can Basic Income Plus The Blockchain Build A New Economic System? Retrieved from
  • Laloux, F. (2014). reinventing organizations.
  • Lintern, G. a. (20017). Sociotechnical System Safety: . 307-317.
  • Lomas, N. (2018). Data experts on Facebooks GDPR changes expect lawsuits. Retrieved from Techcrunch:
  • Martins, E. a. (2002). An organisational culture model to promote creativity and innovation. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28.
  • Matai, D. (2011). what-is-the-key-to-survival-in-a-constantly-changing-environment. Retrieved from
  • Merriam webster. (n.d.). Decentralization. Retrieved from
  • Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Retrieved from
  • Nakamoto, S. (2009). Bitcoin. Retrieved from
  • New, S. (2010). The transparent supply chain. Retrieved from Harverd business revieuw:
  • Newworldencyclopedia. (n.d.). Mutiny . Retrieved from
  • Origin Trail. (2017). Whitepaper. Retrieved from
  • perc, M. (2016). Phase transitions in models of human cooperation. Slovenia: Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, University of Maribor. doi:10.1016
  • Peters, G. W. (2016). Understanding modern banking ledgers through blocchain technologies: future of transaction processing and smart contracts on the internet of money. In banking beyond banks and money: A guide to banking services in the twenty-first centrury. Springer.
  • Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup. Penguin Books Ltd.
  • Riggio, R. E. (2009). How power corrupts leaders. Retrieved from
  • Satell, G. (2013). 4 Ways in which technology is transforming business. Retrieved from
  • semler, R. (2010). Semco Style. Evergreen.
  • Steemit. (2017). Whitepaper. Retrieved from
  • Storj. (2016). whitepaper. Retrieved from
  • Sundararajan, A. (2016). The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism .
  • The World Bank. (2017). measuring financial inclusion-and the fintech revolution. Retrieved from
  • TheGuardian. (2016). Retrieved from Facebook’s failure: did fake news and polarized politics get Trump elected?:
  • Theguardian. (2018). Global crackdown on fake news raises censorship concerns. Retrieved from
  • Thomson, A. (2015). Top 25 non-financial blockchain start-ups. Retrieved from
  • Wallstreettechnologist. (2015). “Decentralized”? – What does that really mean? Retrieved from
  • Worldbank. (2016). Blockchain Powered financial inclussion.
  • WTO. (2018). Can Blockchain revolutionize international trade? Retrieved from
  • Zeichick, A. (2008). How Facebook Works. Retrieved from technologyreview:

The post The decentralization of authority appeared first on CircularityLabs.

]]> 2
A consumption society Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:06:18 +0000 The post A consumption society appeared first on CircularityLabs.



We are living in times of great economic uncertainty. Never in human history have we managed to get our world in such disequilibrium as today. Our global resources are depleting, fossil fuels are depleting, we are burning a hole in the ozone layer. We keep growing and consuming more and more every year. This in term increases the damage we do to the earth exponentially. We have created a system that shoves down responsibilities, facilitates an ever in width expanding gap between poor and rich and which pollutes and destroys our planet. Our society runs and relies purely on our deeply rooted faith in our economy, the new and largest religion on the planet, money.

Through the continuous bombardment of commercials and social media in our daily lives, we are constantly triggered to consume more and more. Every year we need a new cell phone, every month we buy new clothes. Trends and fashions force people to renew their outfit on a regular basis. We constantly buy stuff just because we want it, not because we need it. We don’t think about what happens with all the stuff we never used and we also don’t think of where all the stuff comes from. We don’t feel responsible for our actions because the implications aren’t close to our world. It is everybody’s responsibility to take care of the planet which in a way makes it nobody’s and allows us to shamelessly take the common good for granted and only think about ourselves.


Our whole capitalistic society is therefore based around the idea that everyone has the right to purely think about him or herself and take the rest for granted. We all think it is normal that companies are always trying to gain as much money from us as possible. In business and marketing classes we shamelessly learn to manipulate people into getting them to do what we want. If you ask someone if they like child labour or global warming, almost everyone will tell you they don’t. However we are all learned that it is oke and

even good to choose for ourselves. This is why we can live with ourselves while we are consciously making decisions every day that ruin our planet and other people’s lives.This hypocrisy is seen in many parts of our society. One of our biggest idols, Steve Jobs, is seen as an inspirational role model while we all know his products are made on the backs of young children working long days in dangerous working conditions. We know and always keep repeating that we actually don’t need the newest iphone and we know the destruction it brings to our planet, but we buy it anyway. We know income inequality is getting larger every year while most of large corporations have smart ways to circumvent taxes, but we accept it anyway. We even vote for politicians that give them more tax redemptions. In other words we consciously choose for income inequality. It is because we all have the hope that we one day will be rich ourselves and when this day comes, we don’t want to share our wealth either.


So why is this? Why do we consistently choose wealth and materialism before the common good of all life on earth? It is because our natural feelings of community, belongingness and survival are being used against us. We are constantly divided against each other by means of religion, race, sexual preference and social classes etc. We are thought not to express our emotions and not to be ourselves because our true self is never good enough. This leaves us with a constant feeling of emptiness & loneliness. The lack of real human connectedness makes us constantly feel like we miss something in our lives. We always want more and never feel like it is enough. This is why we are so hypocrite, we are addicted to consumption. Our addiction and fear makes us choose things of which we know are bad for us.

Only with the newest clothes and the newest car we feel that we are good enough and belong to something. We are so distorted from reality that we confuse the adrenaline rush of a new car with feelings of true human connectedness. This adrenaline rush however only stays temporarily and is always followed by a  renewed feeling of emptiness. We don’t realize that actually this new car wasn’t what we really needed, what we really need is love and acceptance of our being. However since we are unaware of the real cause of our feelings, we blindlessly run back to the stores and start consuming more to fill up the hole again. And its not just materialistic objects, we fill our hole by buying and consuming, but also by chasing experiences and taking drugs and even gaming and watching tv & series. We use everything we can get our hands on to get rid of that empty feeling.

Commercials are so smart that they are able to connect products to certain feelings. “Open happiness”, from coca cola is an unconscious message of: “Buy cola, then you will be happy”. This consumption in the end doesn’t makes us happy, it probably makes us feel worse. But now in your mind the already addictive sugar boost your brain gets is associated with the feeling of happiness, which makes you crave more and more. This gets us in an endless spiral of consumption. No wonder obesity rates around the world are as high as poverty rates. And what do we need in order to keep consuming? Money, which is why most people around the world spent their whole life and all their energy trying to acquire it, no matter at what cost.


Do you recognise yourself in this? Or do you disagree? Let me know in the comments!

The post A consumption society appeared first on CircularityLabs.

]]> 0