“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.