“W
e
have
an
opportunity
to rebuild the
financial system,” Galia Benartzi,
technology
entrepreneur
at
cryptocurrency protocol Bancor,
said to Fortune in December.
“Are we going to do it with all
guys again?”
To the average follower of the
Bitcoin fad, Benartzi’s comment
may appear blindly optimistic.
Blockchain is a relatively new
technology that allows for digital
interactions that don’t require a
third party — think a Google Doc
that everyone has access to edit in
real time, but without a third party
like Google to oversee it. Though
this may sound fairly simple,
there are several tech companies
aiming to use blockchain to
reinvent media, charity and, of
course, money. Bitcoin was the
first major form of cryptocurrency
built on blockchain technology. If
people recognize it as money, it
will allow for a financial system
with no third parties. That means
no banks, no Federal Reserve and
likely no taxes.
However, at this point, few
people are buying into the hype. It
would be somewhat naive to claim
that Bitcoin, and cryptocurrency
in general, could rebuild the
financial system any time soon. It’s
even more naive to act as though
it’s the feminists’ chance to finally
take down the patriarchy. Rather,
according to many economists,
cryptocurrencies are expected
to lose almost all value in a burst
similar to that of the dot-com
bubble in 2001.
Why? The economic definition
of money is a medium of exchange
and a store of value. As people
invest
in
cryptocurrency
speculatively, its prices are driven
artificially high at extremely
fast
rates.
The
volatility
of
cryptocurrency
compromises
its trustworthiness as a store of
value, and therefore gives it very
little potential to be implemented
as a medium of exchange in
everyday life. In order to avoid
a cryptocurrency bubble burst,
cryptocurrency must be given
some sort of intrinsic value, or
at least perceived value. Because
paper
money
provides
the
marketplace with an established
system
and
relatively
steady
exchange rates, it’s difficult to
envision a large-scale switch
to
cryptocurrency.
Therefore,
avoiding
the
burst
of
the
cryptocurrency
bubble
would
entail major innovation: some
sort of creative thinking that
encourages the average spender
to exchange his or her money for
cryptocurrency for reasons other
than speculation.
Whether or not she intended
to
do
so,
Benartzi
actually
acknowledged the risk of a Bitcoin
bubble in her comment. If women
and minority groups enter the
cryptocurrency
industry
both
by claiming leadership roles in
companies that center around
cryptocurrency, or simply by
investing in cryptocurrency, this
could turn cryptocurrency from
a fad to a legitimate financial
system. In essence, if we “do it
with all guys again,” we will not
rebuild the financial system, and
the bubble will likely pop. But,
if we diversify the crypto-
world, cryptocurrency has a
chance of surviving.
Why
might
diversity
give
cryptocurrency the chance to
survive? According to Forbes,
somewhere between 5 and 7
percent of all cryptocurrency users
are women. As one can imagine, as
we look at the leadership positions
of companies centered around
cryptocurrency, the percentage
of women decreases even more.
Marketplace trends make it clear
that industries with relatively
homogenous leadership do not fare
well when it comes to innovation.
There is no shortage of data
supporting this claim. According
to McKinsey’s report Diversity
Matters, “companies in the top
quartile for gender diversity are
15 percent more likely to have
financial returns above their
respective
national
industry
medians,” while “bottom quartile
companies are lagging rather
than merely not leading.” It
claims “diversity is a competitive
differentiator
shifting
market
share
toward
more
diverse
companies.”
As
Scientific
American
puts
it,
“Decades
of research by organizational
scientists,
psychologists,
sociologists,
economists
and
demographers
show
that
socially diverse groups (that is,
those with a diversity of race,
ethnicity, gender and sexual
orientation) are more innovative
than homogeneous groups.”
If anyone is in desperate and
immediate need of innovation, it
is the cryptocurrency industry.
They need to beat the clock, to find
a way to establish cryptocurrency
as a legitimate store of value before
the bubble bursts. Therefore,
the importance of women being
involved in blockchain at every
level is not some feminist fantasy.
Rather, it is critical to the success
of cryptocurrency.
In areas where women are
involved
in
cryptocurrency,
especially in leadership positions,
we have seen unprecedented
levels of innovation. According
to
Fortune,
female-led
cryptocurrency companies focus
on different issues than those
led by men. For example, female-
led BitPesa and Tala are using
blockchain technology to provide
basic
financial
services,
like
insurance and access to credit, to
parts of the world in which these
services aren’t easily accessible. In
her article for Coindesk, Thessy
Mehrain, founder of Women
in Blockchain, outlined what
she believes should be goals for
blockchain use 2018. These goals
included self-regulation of the
cryptocurrency and the ability
to “enable the core promises of
blockchain to empower human
rights.”
These
goals
differ
significantly from the traditional
goals of male leaders in the
blockchain community, and are,
by definition, innovative.
The
increased
innovation
that comes with more diverse
leadership
is
exactly
what
cryptocurrency needs to avoid
a bubble burst. As it stands,
cryptocurrency is viewed, at
best, as a decentralized monetary
system that’s effective for avoiding
taxes or getting paid without a
social security number. At worst,
it is viewed as a fun speculative
investment that will likely lose
all value in the coming years. The
innovations we have seen from
female-led companies provide an
entirely new range of applications
for cryptocurrency with a larger
user base. This means, with
enough creative thinking, it still
stands a chance of meeting the
definition of money.
Of
course,
women
aren’t
magical fairy godmothers who
will
magically
prevent
the
burst of the Bitcoin bubble. The
magical
fairy
godmother
is
simply innovation itself. However,
marketplace trends have shown
time and time again that diversity
is one of the biggest indicators of
innovation. This means that as
cryptocurrency
works
against
the clock to find a way to establish
itself as legitimate currency before
the bubble bursts, it is highly
advisable for executives in the
cryptocurrency industry to do
everything they can to increase
diversity in their companies.
“G
et out there, get
in the way, get in
trouble, good trouble,
necessary trouble and make some
noise,” U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.,
said at the Massachusetts College
of Liberal Arts. CNN anchor
Jake Tapper chose simpler, more
practical advice at Dartmouth
College: “Always write thank-you
notes. Be a big tipper. Always split
Aces and Eights. Floss.” Perhaps
my favorite of the many memorable
quotes from college commencement
speeches in 2017 came from actress
Helen Mirren, who reminded the
2017 graduates at Tulane University
that “Like a hangover, neither
triumph nor disaster lasts forever.”
All across the country, graduates
and their parents heard from titans
of industry, politicians, comedians,
authors
and
people
whose
stories provided perspective and
inspiration for their transition from
undergraduate life into the “real
world.” Not so at the University
of Michigan. The 2017 graduating
class will no doubt struggle to
remember
anything
notable
about the video and multimedia
presentation they watched last
April, in honor of the Bicentennial.
Considering the backlash that
radiated from these events last
year, I doubt very much that the
University’s 2018 graduating class
will see a repeat of this error in
judgement. We can expect, at the
very least, a speaker. Rather than
wait, though, for the administration
to make a choice that may be
phenomenally
underwhelming,
why not take the reins on this one?
Our class has spent a unique four
years in Ann Arbor. Punctuated
for many by the 2016 presidential
election, we have seen countless
changes in University policy and
culture, including the unveiling of
the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
strategic plan, the decline of Greek
life and substantial increases in
housing costs and tuition. We
cracked the discussion wide-open
in reference to free speech on
college campuses, and continue to
debate the implications of Richard
Spencer coming to campus. On the
global stage, our four years saw
refugee crises in the Middle East
and Europe, a nuclear deal with
Iran, the rise of nationalism across
Western democracies and data
leaks that rocked the world.
To put it another way, it has been
an
extraordinarily
interesting
four years to be a college student.
Accordingly, to compose and
deliver an appropriate speech —
be it inspirational, controversial,
comedic or anything in between —
will be quite the challenge. What
better search committee than
those of us who discussed these
events in classes and dining halls,
and who have an idea of what tone
we would like to capture?
Student-led
searches
for
commencement speakers are
not at all out of the ordinary.
Just last year, the student body
at Rutgers University succeeded
in bringing President Barack
Obama
to
their
graduation
ceremony.
“Emails,
letters,
tweets, YouTube videos – I
even got three notes from the
grandmother of your student
body president,” Obama said. “I
have to say, that really sealed the
deal.” In 2014, it was a student-
led campaign at the University
of California at Irvine that
chose to hear from President
Obama as well.
At
Manhattanville
College,
student government works in
tandem
with
administrators
to “create a list of potential
speakers.” At Dillard University,
each graduating senior submits a
list of 10 personalities from which
they would like to hear. Though
such processes would obviously
be a logistical nightmare at
a university as large as ours,
these examples provide a stark
contrast with recent incidents
of student protest in relation to
commencement speakers.
Such incidents include, but
are not limited to, recent events
such as the selection of Secretary
of Education Betsy DeVos at
Baltimore University and Vice
President Mike Pence at the
University of Notre Dame. Each
speaker sparked their fair share
of outrage among the student
body. Regardless of whether or
not you agree with their protests,
no one can deny many students
were greatly upset with their
university’s decision. Just a few
years earlier, former Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice had to
decline an invitation to speak at
Rutgers University based on the
student body’s distaste for her
record in favor of the Iraq War and
as a supporter of torture.
Clearly, there are two ways of
going about this selection process.
One involves a lot of tension,
long-winded Facebook posts and
protests. The other involves a little
bit of effort, a lot of student input
and the satisfaction of all parties
knowing that the decision is
shared by thousands of members
of the target audience rather than
a group of administrators offering
their best guess of what will go
over well.
The right person for the job
might be John Lewis, Jake
Tapper or Helen Mirren. It
might
be
an
entrepreneur,
an actor, a politician or an
academic. My personal wish
list includes Stephen Colbert
and Michelle Obama. Whoever
it is, as a member of the 2018
graduating class, I would like to
hear from someone we picked on
graduation day.
Whether it be The Michigan
Daily or the Central Student
Government or the University
administration who gets the ball
rolling, the discussion should start
now. Not that any of us need the
reminder, but April is right around
the corner.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, January 4, 2018
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
BRETT GRAHAM | COLUMN
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
Bitcoin needs more women
Hannah Harshe can be reached at
hharshe@umich.edu.
HANNAH HARSHE | COLUMN
Choosing our commencement speaker
I
n
the
months
since
President Donald Trump’s
inauguration,
various
policy decisions and comments
by the nation’s leader have called
into question the country’s status
as a role model for democracy.
Through big legislation proposals
in the areas of immigration and tax
code, it has become evident that
the power structure of the United
States is slowly shifting to favor
the privileged and neglect those
without a voice.
But this power controversy
throughout Trump’s term is not
limited to hypersensitive topics
like immigration and health care
alone — it has manifested itself in
seemingly insignificant laws that
have fairly pertinent consequences.
On
Dec.
14,
the
Federal
Communications
Commission
voted
to
overturn
the
2015
regulations put in place by President
Barack Obama that mandated net
neutrality across the internet.
In what Ajit Pai, Trump-
appointed
chairman
of
the
U.S.
Federal
Communications
Commission, called an attempt
to stop the government from
“micromanaging the internet,” the
repeal on regulations gives internet
service
providers
significantly
more power over what is available
and for what price on the web,
potentially hampering the current
freedom consumers have to surf
the internet.
Only two days later, reports
surfaced
that
Trump
had
informed the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention of a
supposed banned word list for
official documents in the 2019
fiscal year, including pressing
terms like “diversity,” “science-
based” and “transgender.”
Though
the
validity
of
the report remains a topic of
conversation,
the
fact
that
such allegations would surface
from a CDC official speaks to
the dangerous direction the
country is headed in terms of
censorship and the relationship
between the government and
the media. The net neutrality
and CDC policies both highlight
Trump’s desire to take the
power from the many to the few,
and in the process increase his
own control over the country.
Net neutrality, in its simplest
form, is a mandate that prohibits
internet services from favoring
certain
websites
or
services
in order to further their own
business interests.
For example, if a customer
purchases internet access through
Comcast, he or she has as much
freedom to access Google as Netflix
or Hulu. However, if Comcast is able
to charge more for specialized, high-
demand internet services, they will
do so in order to make their own
streaming services more attractive —
slowing down and making popular
websites more expensive.
Apart
from
the
increased
cost and inconvenience accrued
by consumers because of net
neutrality’s repeal, the action by
the FCC reveals the detrimental
state of the government under
Trump’s
leadership
and
the
diminishing power of the everyday
American citizen.
During both Obama and Trump’s
respective terms, the American
public voiced their concern at the
prospect of repealing net neutrality,
highlighted in a University of
Maryland report claiming that 83
percent of voters rejected the FCC’s
new legislation.
On a more macro level, Obama
declared net neutrality to be
a driving force in “protecting
innovation and creating a level
playing field for the next generation
of entrepreneurs.”
Yet even more important than
his
acknowledgement
of
the
internet’s capability to facilitate
business growth and creativity
is his recognition of internet as a
manifestation of democracy. Shortly
after the FCC upheld net neutrality
regulations in 2015, Obama stated
that “nothing can stand in the way
of millions of voices calling for
change,” referring to the numerous
petitions sent to the FCC and
Congress detailing the importance
of freedom on the internet.
Trump clearly does not share the
same values.
Where Obama highlighted the
importance of democracy and
individual freedom in his support
of net neutrality, Trump exposed
his desire to place the power of
the internet — one of the most
instrumental tools for political
and social discourse in the 21st
century — in the hands of the few.
And in doing so, he illuminates
his desire to gain control over
the millions of voices crying out
across the country.
With the surfacing of Trump’s
alleged banned words report to the
CDC only a few days after the FCC
repeal, public fear of a diminishing
democracy
grew.
The
report
centers on a list of seven words
that Trump deemed inappropriate
or too controversial for the CDC
to publish, including factual and
unbiased terms like “science-based”
and “evidence-based.”
At first glance, the egregiousness
of Trump’s report seems almost
comical and hard to believe.
Though the CDC has pushed
back against the legitimacy of this
claim, the pure existence of such
allegations against Trump speak
not only to his deceitful character,
but to his desire for censorship
and control.
While it would be a gross
exaggeration to liken the state of this
country to censored dictatorships
like that of North Korea, seeds of
such a power structure can be seen
in Trump’s recent policy choices.
One such example lies within
the lack of attention given to the
recent net neutrality legislation, as
inadequate media coverage is an
infamous characteristic of North
Korea’s dictatorship. Similar to
how Kim Jong-Un’s regime has
restricted internet access to “a small
section of the elite,” the FCC’s new
policy has the same motive albeit to
a much lesser extent — limiting the
capacity of the internet based on the
desires of a few large companies.
Should Trump continue to
censor the content given to the
public while at the same time
limiting the total amount of
information available, this sets a
dangerous precedent for the future
of individual freedoms as it relates
to media and information sharing.
And while it might be a few
months
or
years
before
the
average American sees tangible
consequences from Trump’s recent
policy, the danger lies more in
principle than practicality.
As the power in the country
becomes more concentrated, it may
be another four years before the
masses regain control and truly
make their voices heard.
BEN CHARLSON | COLUMN
Changing policy, more control
Ben Charlson can be reached at
bencharl@umich.edu.
If anyone is in
desperate and
immediate need
of innovation,
it is the crypto
industry.
Brett Graham can be reached at
btgraham@umich.edu.
WANT TO JOIN OUR TEAM?
Come to The Michigan Daily’s mass meetings!
Mass meetings will be located in the newsroom at 420
Maynard on Jan. 11, 16 and 17 at 7 p.m. Hope to see you there!
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.