“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.

