jumps right down, but it’s still in the several billions of dollars so you’re probably okay.
But we’re also going to see a more accountable governance because we’ll have a stake in the
future. And we’re not going to let Cambridge Analytica onto the platform because none of us
want that. You wanted that. You, the singular owners of Facebook, wanted that. But the users,
the producers of content and sharing on the network, never wanted that and never will.I really condemn the win-win mythology.
With Netflix, if you’re going to change the
status quo, the very people who created
the status quo aren’t the people to change
it because they have a vested interest in it.
Anybody who has the power to change the
status quo won’t because it’s going to remove
the base of their power. So I am definitely a
person who feels like as a person of privilege
who does have, by virtue of marriage really, a lot of power in the system, Tom and I have to
use all our power to dismantle it. And that’s also generationally my charge becauseand not burden them with knocking down the old tropes and the vested interests or so on.
Maybe that’s a false approach because maybe you have to get a little scrappy and knock some
things over in order to create something beautiful. I’m perfectly happy to try to knock some
things over. I do love being on the design side. So at the same time that I speak openly against
the vested interests of banking and the economy and the natural monopolies and stuff like
that, I’m also developing a collective of let’s say smart people we know to get together and
share their thoughts and advance the thinking on this. Like how could this happen? What
would it look like? I also recognise that there are some things that just are never going to be
knocked down. They’re too powerful. We’ll have to invent around them. So our theory is not
that we’re going to get rid of all the money-centred banks somehow. But we think that we can
give the regional banks, the big-but-not-too-big banks, a playbook that says if you act like
this you’re going to steal deposits and equity capital and human capital off the biggest banks.
They’re the intermediaries that we need to change to flip the system with something more
beneficial to all people. Are we going to get so far to say, “When you pay them money on their
deposit you ought to give them a little micro share in your bank as well”? I don’t know. I hope
we get to that point. But we can combine the “knock down the vested interest” with “design
a beautiful future.” And that’s happening. Gunnar Lovelace and the Good Money platform is
paying people for deposits with a micro share of equity along with interest. I may not get to be
the person who’s offering it but I’m sure going to cheerleader on the sidelines if I don’t get to.Yep. Definitely. So we approach it through
the regulatory landscape which could
include knocking down some of the vested
interests or at least constraining them
through other banks’ commitments to use
the good banking playbook. And throughRight. As you’re talking what’s interesting to me are these two
pathways of one being the resistance of the current paradigm
and the other being the creation of the new or next, evolved
paradigm, fully acknowledging that both are necessary. But do
you find your energy gravitating to one pathway over another?
Or are you squarely feeling both equally: pushing back and
resisting the status quo as well as building the new and trying
to bridge that gap and bring people on that journey?
It sounds like what really lights you up is the creative thinking
around what would a system that works for all stakeholders
potentially look like and how do we build that so that there is
that option for people to opt into? And by being exposed to
what’s possible, the demand side actually forces some of these
larger money-centred banks to change their practices as well.I want to leave to the next generations the
beautiful visioning of the next status quo that’s
good to all stakeholders71LEGENDCONVERSATIONS