The Internet of Money

the banking environment where everything requires permission, which is most certainly not granted, and a system which is completely open, where innovation happens at the edge without permission — guess who wins. Guess where all of the exciting things happen. Guess where all of the innovation happens. This is innovation that serves consumers.

You don’t have to be secured. The network doesn’t fear you because its security doesn’t depend on keeping bad actors out.

All of these networks are designed to be closed because their primary security relies on access control.

It’s not just going to win because the banking system has spent the last 50 years delivering just two consumer innovations — ATMs and credit cards — and then spent the rest of the time trying to figure out how to fleece you. It’s going to win because it’s open.

But most of the problems with traditional concentration of power in money has nothing to do with the people being evil. It has to do with the fact that these institutions — through their shape, through their architecture — produce outcomes that are not good. They produce outcomes that are not egalitarian. They produce outcomes that are restrictive.

We are restructuring society by rebuilding institutions. Traditionally, our institutions have been hierarchical in design. This was an invention of industrialization, an 18th-century concept to allow people to organize and communicate at a larger scale. It was very effective at breaking the monopolies of kings and feudal systems. It has now run its

The interesting thing about the change between a platform and a protocol is, when you have a protocol there is no central appeal.

That is the architecture of money we use in our civilization: an architecture of money where you have no control; an architecture of money where every interaction is mediated by a third party that has absolute control over that money.

So, we move from institutions to platforms.