This is just one mechanism out of dozens that we’re doing. I think it’s is a good idea because then we have a directly elected president. We imbue in her presidential will. She shares it horizontally to a process of co-creation. That totally ignores representative democracy, but is realized and ...

Also, a gradual slope in the sense that you can just participate part-time as a participant or a contributor instead of a project lead during the Presidential Hackathon period, which is three months to every year. This year, we also have International Track with seven countries joining as well.

The participation framework is both wide in the sense that people can join with just five minutes of voting, and also deep in the sense that it can actually reach the same binding power as legislative budgeting power.

What it symbolizes is that whatever the team has delivered as a proof of concept in the following year, we are committed to integrate it into public service by introducing whatever regulatory change, personnel change, or budget change required to the ones that demonstrate as the better way of working.

The trophy is a projector that if you turn on projects the image of the president herself handing the trophy to you. It’s very useful in internal negotiations because it can serve as a symbolism of the presidential will, but crowdsourced by the people and co-created across sectors.

After the prototype comes the demo day, where the president herself hands out trophies to the five winning teams every year. There is no money. It’s not about economic reward.

We’re looking for synergies. That’s what we were looking for. We select 20 teams out of the quadratic voting and coach them to be trilingual, meaning that whatever they start with, they would end up with a tech expert, a domain expert, and a public servant , in a way ...

If you vote for a project of 2 votes, that’s going to cost you 4 points, 3 votes is going to cost 9 points, 4 in 16, and so on. It’s created so that the marginal utility coincides with the marginal spending of the points. People have to maximize the ...

We make sure that we use quadratic voting, which is a new voting mechanism out of the RadicalxChange collaboration with Glen Weyl and Vitalik Buterin, so that people see 100 or so cases. They are authenticated through the Join platform, and each receive 99 points. They can spend the points ...

The main incentive really is the connection to the political binding power. I’ll just use one example. Every year, we run the Presidential Hackathon, where people just crowdsource their ideas of how to improve public service.

This statement imbued in software language is what I’m looking for. I’m not directly saying technical advancement, the product as a service of people in the planet, the technical advancement as inspiring are regulative metaphors for people in the planet. That is the different level of conversation I’m focusing more ...

Rather, to inspire people to have a reflective idea of seeing, "Oh, the state is failing me, so I should actually organize and feel where the state have lacking and show the state in an open way how to do it, so the states can be more relaxed and make ...

You can have also different forking emerging possibilities. That is truly what we mean by the movement g0v. By changing the O to 0 in G-O-V, it is not meant to dissemble government itself into decentralized institution.

If we take the idea of a creative fork emerge at any given time as a political aspiration or regulative thought, then you will start discovering similar patterns everywhere. Even very far from the software domain, AI domain, or blockchain domain. You can have regulatory sandboxes that is also forking ...

Just to summarize very quickly, the capability to fork is not just a technical thing. If we treat it as a technical thing, then there’s a great disconnect because people who are equipped to fork is, frankly speaking, a few very percentage of people.

That’s by and large where Vitalik Buterin himself is going through RadicalxChange, collaboration with Glen Weyl, Radical Markets, and things like that. By the way, I’m joining the board as a non-profit of the RadicalxChange Foundation along with Glen Weyl and Vitalik Buterin to explore the political dimension of decentralism.

If you start with this design question, then people tend to think of ways that are not for short-term gains, of individuals gains, or for all other things like that, that people will start to think about more political possibilities.

If you hold the image of what you just described in your mind instead of the particular software of the deployment, and the protocol, and things like that, this then creates a different set of political questions saying that the design space begins with the fundamental assumption that nobody have ...

What we are doing here instead is making sure that they signify the different way of integrating social consensus. We emphasize the politics dimension of the operationalization of Ethereum. It is what Kant would call a regulative thought.

The basic idea of this conversation is saying we’re not specifically fixating on the code that is the particular implementation of decentralized apparatus such as Ethereum.

Nobody wants their culture to be coerced into a subservient status. Now, every culture feels this way because of globalization. That is my counternarrative.

That is kind of how I rephrase conservative anarchism in a way that is not individualistic, but rather as a strategy to make sure that we, despite our different cultural positions, arrive at common values in a way that is not coercive.

If we say conservative anarchism in the sense of conserving their planet and their people’s relationship and what they treasure, that’s totally something that a 15-year-old would understand and a 65-year-old would not oppose to.

What I’m getting at is that they were excluded from representational democracy anyway. They were not at a voting age or referendum age, but actually, they do lead the consciousness change.

For example, Taiwan just banned indoor use of plastic straws or one-shot use and things like that. These were just organized by 15 years old on the e-petition platform. Among, them, of course, also 65 years old. Those are the main two age groups.

But underlying it is a kind of a Buckminster Fuller idea of the consciousness change that you just described of 15 years old, if we enabled them to have their effect on a society, as in Taiwan, through e-petition, 15 years old just project their enormous mobilization capabilities.

Conservative meaning keeping what works, making sure that why the grandparent’s life experience still makes sense to the young people. Making sure that institutions are respected as is and we complement instead of destroy institutions.

Yeah, so I call myself openly as a, quote unquote, "conservative anarchism." The term, it’s designed so that it appeals to people who care about the plural traditions.

What’s in operation, I’m not saying development. The development is downright minimal. But in any case, what I’m saying is that then now that we have firsthand experience of people participating in anarchistic systems, that’s when the word can be more openly used, is what I’m saying.

That was around the turn of century. But then there came Bitcoin and Ethereum and suddenly we don’t have to explain the core concepts anymore because then people do actually see that you can have the centralization while have a different sort of trust that has its own governance problems, ...

At least that is the context of how I connected my more Zen and Taoist traditions and the more political traditions of socialist anarchism to the more crypto-anarchist.

Actually, Eben Moglen of the Free Software Foundation wrote a very influential paper around the turn of the century called "Anarchism Triumphant -- Free Software and the Death of Copyright," and the birth of copyleft, I’m sure. That is, I think, how the people in the software realm generally reperceived ...

Once we enter this more digital realm and see more digital twins out of analog parts, then all the odes of property as theft narratives doesn’t need to be invoked anymore, because they are not private property to begin with. The arguments then becomes anarchism as a mode of production ...

That’s what AI, if I sent my image to you through Skype, I don’t lose my image. It’s insane to treat this as property in the traditional sense.

But I think because we’re operating in a domain now where the software, or the code, or the algorithm that is the spirit imbued in the flesh that is code is plainly not property, "intellectual property," quote unquote, notwithstanding. It is theoretically a paradox to treat them as property. Because ...

People generally agree that if you can replace hierarchy with horizontal leadership, people are fine with it. But if you start saying property is theft, then people have a lot more problem accepting that, John Lennon notwithstanding.

It’s not as much bomb throwing as it is as meme throwing. I think we are at a age where...The traditional anarchism, I think, was seen as antagonistic, mostly because of their work against private property, and more so than anything.

There’s a very famous article at a time, about a hundred years ago now, that says anarchism sees education as revolution. Basically, a cultural enlightenment is what Eastern anarchists like Chuang Tzu following Lao Tzu, partly that was in tradition, is looking forward.

They are, of course, advocating anarchistic revolution in the context of the Eastern thought and just rephrasing it.

In particular, I think the influence of Henry George is very much present in Dr. Sun Yat-Sen’s thoughts. His main allies at the time has still like overarching political cultural influence in the early ROC revolution are anarchists and mostly the French part of the anarchist thinking.

I think the early 20th century thoughts, political thought, like Dr. Sun Yat-sen, who created the five branches of government that we’re still running with here in Taiwan. It was a lot of his thoughts, too, for example, the early socialist thinkers.

But at the end, I think in the Western context, like in IEEE or in IETF, we have to invent new words like rough consensus and running code to capture this same sort of meaning. I think that is also why the key IETF RFC document to capture the process ...

Even just the term itself carries a different notion. I would argue it’s much easier to have a participatory design session if what you’re aiming to is just common sensing.

But this by itself is very different from its traditional Western counterpart, which is consensus. Consensus is something that is very strong, that is binding, that you can put your name on it that signifies a kind of rigid link between individual peoples.

In Taiwan we say [Chinese] , but we mean that by common understanding or a common sense, actually, sense as in sensing, not in common sense.

I’m very happy to also connect to people who think along these lines and the importance of making sure that the non-duality is getting into all the different dimensions of the CXI, for example, in participatory democracy or participatory design.

While the West side, somewhat symbolical, is Westernized. It’s very interesting that within the island ourselves, we do have this non-duality going on in terms of conversation between indigenous traditions as well as the more rigorous manifestation, but still of indigenous root, like a local religion and Taoism and things ...

What I’m trying to get at is that we still have indigenous cultures around and in Taiwan. Half of Taiwan, all of the East side, is actually indigenous traditional land.

That is the same as Tibetan Buddhism. It’s not that’s the logical India line of thought. In the beginning, it’s just indigenous spirituality in Tibet. But then they get kind of formalized through Buddhist logic.