Two technical forces are backed by two conflicting philosophical views on technology.

Author | Zhang Xiaojun

Editor | Yang Buding

Produced by | Tencent News "Periscope"

Our world is being impacted by multiple new technological forces.

The first force is represented by OpenAI, which is evolving into the mainstream of global technological thought. The second force is Web3, cryptography, and blockchain. Over the past two years, these two forces have become increasingly disparate.

In November 2024, we met with Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin, who gazed across the divide of cryptography towards artificial intelligence. In his view, AI is intervening in human emotions, thoughts, and even subconsciousness in a seemingly equal and innocuous manner, and it may construct an unprecedentedly powerful center of authority through this. A technological revolution will drive a "power game" concerning the fate of all humanity.

Vitalik is the spiritual leader of Web3, and the Ethereum he founded ranks second in the industry, only behind Bitcoin. Since Bitcoin's creator Satoshi Nakamoto has never revealed himself, this has made Vitalik the spokesperson for the field. His experiences have also added a legendary color to his persona.

Born in 1994, Vitalik's parents divorced when he was young, and he immigrated from Russia to Canada. He dropped out of college at 19 to create Ethereum and became the youngest crypto billionaire in his twenties. In China, he is referred to as "V God." He just celebrated his 30th birthday this year.

Vitalik is always trying to articulate a philosophical view of technology. In his understanding, AI and Crypto represent two underlying philosophies. AI technology is more centralized and powerful, aiming to make human civilization and technology stronger; whereas Crypto, in contrast, advocates for a decentralized, egalitarian survivalist philosophy. Unlike AI, which occupies a position in a few global strongholds, Crypto's strongholds are dispersed worldwide, even more suited to marginalized areas. In the words of Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel: "Crypto is libertarian, and AI is communist."

"Now when everyone uses ChatGPT, it's like chatting with a friend. But in 10 years, everyone will tell ChatGPT all their thoughts. If your AI has no privacy, you have no privacy at all, including no privacy of thought," Vitalik said. "If it's centralized, it means a big company can read your thoughts—this is very dangerous."

Vitalik's lifestyle seems to align with the technological ideas he advocates. Our meeting took place in a simple office space, scheduled for 8 AM, and he arrived at 7:40. He was alone, carrying a khaki canvas bag with a cat pattern under his arm, which contained a Dell laptop he bought for distributed AI. On his wrist was a plastic watch with a small cat design. He always wears this outfit while moving between the dispersed Web3 communities.

Vitalik speaks six languages, with English, Russian, and Chinese being his strongest. This conversation was conducted in Chinese.

He still appears somewhat youthful and nerdy, searching hard for the right Chinese characters to express complex technical vocabulary. A staff member poured him a cup of tea, and he repeatedly rubbed the small tag on the teabag, folding it down, then picking it up again to unfold it, and folding it again…

If one day, the ultimate power of artificial intelligence or "Big Brother" seeks to destroy humanity, would the Crypto kingdom you represent come to save humanity?

"This question is quite complex," Vitalik said.

Below is the full dialogue. (For ease of reading, the author has made some text optimizations)

Photo taken by the author, showing Vitalik Buterin

"LLM is very powerful"

Periscope: In your blog post commemorating your 30th birthday, "The end of my childhood," you said: "One thing that fascinates me about modern AI is that it allows us to engage with the hidden variables that guide human interaction in different ways in mathematics and philosophy: AI can make 'resonance' clear and readable." Can you talk about your thoughts on AI?

Vitalik:

Philosophers particularly like to use the latest technologies as analogies to describe what a human is. 100-200 years ago, we had industrial civilization and early robots that had no brains and represented the first step of automation. They said humans are machines. Recently, people have become interested in quantum technology, and many wonder if the human brain is also quantum. I don't think so. How do humans think? Sometimes it's nonsense. But people think in this way: What do humans have in common with computers? What do humans have in common with factories? What do humans have in common with animals? This is how we understand humanity.

Now, the latest technology is the new generation of AI technology: LLM (Large Language Model). The concept of LLM is very complex, but it is very powerful—it can do many things, and we don't know how it does them—it is a black box.

The difference between LLM and ordinary programs is: in an ordinary program, if you randomly delete a line of code, the whole code might crash; it is particularly fragile. In LLM, if you make some small changes, it won't affect the basic functionality; if you only change a little, the output only changes a little.

So, LLM is particularly like humans and animals; it is biological life.

Anthropic is doing research to see what concepts each parameter represents in a relatively small LLM. They found that in LLM, you can see—for example, this parameter represents red, this parameter represents the letter A, that parameter represents capitalism. Even some particularly advanced concepts can be seen.

I posted two images where I asked ChatGPT to draw an extreme Bitcoin person and a similarly extreme Ethereum person. On the left, the Bitcoin figure is an exaggerated wealthy person, while on the right, the Ethereum figure is a computer geek. Through AI, we can see the cultural differences between Bitcoin and Ethereum. Through AI, we can think about many concepts of people and society, thus gaining a better understanding of ourselves.

Periscope: In the past two years, artificial intelligence and large language models have replaced Web3, cryptography, and blockchain, becoming the mainstream of global technological thought. Standing on the side of the Crypto technological wave, watching the bustling AI revolution from across the divide, what are your thoughts?

Vitalik:

Blockchain and artificial intelligence serve completely different purposes. In the short term, AI is a tool that everyone can use to improve efficiency. For example, when I write code or articles, especially when doing things I'm not good at, ChatGPT is most helpful to me. But in the long term, will AI become smarter than humans? It definitely will, but we don't know if it will be in 5 years or 50 years.

Blockchain solves trust issues. If you want to create applications, these applications require many people to participate, interact, and communicate. They lack a trust center, and blockchain applications can solve this problem. Our world has many trust issues, which are more pronounced than they were 10 years ago.

However, in the Crypto field, a problem in the last five years has been that people's dreams and hopes are high, but the technology cannot fulfill most of those dreams. In 2020 and 2021, there was this issue: the transaction fees for Ethereum, Bitcoin, and all chains were very high, with a simple transaction costing $1 or $3. Most applications people wanted to create, aside from financial ones, were not feasible. But this year, with Ethereum's scaling projects, transaction fees on Layer 2 have dropped from $0.50 to sometimes $0.005. Many applications that were previously impossible are now becoming possible.

Such things have happened many times in the computer field: for a long time, people have an idea, but it requires computer technology, CPU speed, and internet traffic to upgrade to a certain level before those ideas can finally become possible. In the next 1, 2, or 3 years, this trend will also occur in Web3.

Periscope: Will Super Apps appear in the Crypto field in the next three years?

Vitalik:

Sometimes I think about a longer-term question: Will the concept of Apps change a lot in 10 years?

Currently, an App is something you have on a computer or a phone, with a user interface where you do things through buttons. But due to artificial intelligence, our interaction with computers and the internet has changed significantly.

In the AI field, startups say that now they have AI technology, and they are creating AI applications. Some (projects) have succeeded. But most will find that actually, people don't need many applications. What they want to do, they can directly tell ChatGPT, and ChatGPT gives them an answer. So I'm wondering, will the future Super App be this? You can communicate directly with computers, phones, or any device using AI, and AI will know what you want to do; it will help you do those things.

Periscope: Will the artificial intelligence technological revolution exacerbate centralization, making its development increasingly distant from the world you envision?

Vitalik:

This question is quite complex. Recently, I discovered an interesting point using AI: when I do things that many people have done before but that I am not good at, ChatGPT is very useful to me; but when I do something particularly cutting-edge, like complex cryptography, AI is of no help at all.

On one hand, AI can yield some equal results, allowing some people to do things they are not good at.

On the other hand, ChatGPT is a very centralized application. When you use ChatGPT, you have to completely trust that it won't expose your various data. I think this issue will become particularly evident in 10 or 20 years.

Now, when everyone uses ChatGPT, it's like chatting with a friend. But in 10 years, everyone will tell ChatGPT all their thoughts. It's possible that we will have something like BCI (brain-computer interface), leading to a deep connection between humans and machines. If your AI has no privacy, you have no privacy at all, including no privacy of thought. This is the first issue.

The second issue is that if it is a centralized company, it can shut down at any time, change the rules at any time, and alter service conditions at any time. Whether you are an individual, a company, or a country, once you start relying on these, risks arise.

So, AI has many advantages, but it also has these problems.

I know many people are starting to work on open-source AI and decentralized AI. In fact, I use these things myself. I deliberately bought a computer—(Vitalik turns and takes out the computer from his canvas bag to show)—this computer has a GPU, an NVIDIA 4070, and I can run some LLMs on my own computer.

When I don't need the highest quality from ChatGPT, I can do it on my own computer. I find this has an advantage: when I don't have internet access, it's not a problem. Decentralized AI is important.

"OpenAI sacrificed open source for safety in the first step, and sacrificed safety for profit in the second step"

Periscope: I'm curious, what do you think of OpenAI as a company? Is it likely to become the largest, or even the ultimate monopolist?

Vitalik:

The story of OpenAI is very interesting. On one hand, it has created a very useful tool for everyone.

I can't say for everyone. Because ChatGPT has two levels: the first level is free; the second level costs $20 a month, available in some countries but not in others. This tool is particularly useful, especially when I enter areas I'm not good at.

But OpenAI has a problem. Initially, Elon Musk saw many large Silicon Valley companies working on artificial intelligence, and he was concerned that if AI was developed by them, it would become very centralized. This poses many risks, so he started OpenAI. However, five years later, due to AI safety concerns, although they didn't explicitly say they wouldn't open source, they modified the definition—open refers to their services being open.

Periscope: It has become CloseAI.

Vitalik:

Yes, they have become CloseAI. Today, another problem has arisen: first, they sacrificed their open source for safety; then this year, they sacrificed their safety for profit.

Last year, there was a conflict between the company and the board, and after the conflict, it seemed that Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI) won. Recently, they announced they would transition from a non-profit to a for-profit company, reducing the power of the board—essentially to an advisory level. This makes me quite concerned.

Periscope: A few days ago, I interviewed Dr. Kai-Fu Lee, a Chinese AI scientist, investor, and entrepreneur. He made several statements, and I want to hear if you agree with them.

He said: "The first to create AGI and crush competitors will inevitably be a globally commercial monopolist, and it has the ambition to become the ultimate monopolist. OpenAI is a particularly powerful monopolistic company, and Sam Altman may become the largest monopolist in history. Although he does not monopolize today, his ambition, strategy, and clear thinking about the first, second, and third steps are impressive. But from a practitioner's perspective, it is also very concerning."

Vitalik: That's right.

Periscope: So, what do you think of Sam Altman as a person?

Vitalik:

I've only met him once, so it's difficult to make a deep judgment about him. The only thing I can observe is how he operates. Many of the things he does at OpenAI, I disagree with.

He is working on the Worldcoin project, which I think has a good idea. I don't believe Worldcoin should be the only way to establish a global digital identity, but it is addressing a real problem that needs to be solved. I have communicated quite a bit with the Worldcoin team, and they are concerned about all the issues I would care about.

But there is still the problem that creating "the next global currency" is very difficult. If you want to do this, many people will oppose it. Creating such a thing requires two conditions—this is very interesting—first, the world needs to trust you as a person; second, everyone needs to know there is a mechanism that allows them not to trust you as a person. They have made many improvements in the past year and hope to continue developing in a positive direction.

Periscope: You just said that on one hand, people need to trust this person, and on the other hand, they need to know they don't need to trust this person. Does Sam meet this condition?

Vitalik: I don't think the current OpenAI meets this.

Periscope: Will the departure of key people like Ilya Sutskever (OpenAI's chief scientist) from OpenAI impact the landscape of artificial intelligence?

Vitalik:

This is a red flag, something to be concerned about.

The departure of many people doesn't necessarily mean the company has problems. In the early days of Ethereum, many co-founders left. If someone leaves or is dismissed, it usually means there are some conflicts or differing values behind it. We need to look at the specific details.

Looking at the details of OpenAI, I believe this company first sacrificed open source for safety, and then sacrificed safety for profit. This reminds me of a saying by one of America's founding fathers: you cannot sacrifice freedom for safety; if you do, you will find you have neither safety nor freedom. Observing OpenAI's actions, it seems that such a thing has happened.

Periscope: Who should humanity trust more, Sam Altman or you?

Vitalik: I don't want to answer that. (laughs)

"The merger of biology and silicon is the only superintelligence that humanity can participate in"

Periscope: How do you understand Peter Thiel's statement: "Crypto is libertarian, and AI is communist"?

Vitalik:

I think what he means is that AI is centralized, while Crypto is decentralized. Where does the power of AI come from? First, from computational power; second, from data.

If you have more computational power, your AI will be stronger; if you have more data, your AI will also be stronger. AI is a particularly powerful thing. The best AI is the largest AI. If you want to create an AI, the simplest way is to put computational power and data in one place.

Currently, we can see that AI companies are almost all located in 3-4 places in the world: Silicon Valley, London, and a few cities in China; but the Crypto community and projects are particularly dispersed. The Ethereum Foundation has only 25% of its members in the U.S.; where are the others? They are everywhere. There are many in Germany, many in the UK, many in Singapore, and a few developers in China. Every country has them. Why is that? Because what Crypto does is different.

Where is Crypto most useful? In some marginalized areas without centralized trust centers.

Periscope: In places without centralized power? This means it is not the main character in the world.

Vitalik:

The goal of Crypto is to allow you to create applications where everyone can see the application rules and contracts. Not everyone needs to be able to read them, but at least many people can audit the code, and everyone can participate. Blockchain is a global thing. Therefore, some characteristics of AI and Crypto are indeed moving in different directions.

Periscope: The underlying values are different.

Vitalik:

Yes. Moreover, the reasons people participate in these fields are also different. The common reason is money. The difference is what people want to achieve in these fields.

People involved in AI are particularly concerned about the development of human technology, hoping to accelerate humanity's transformation into a multi-planetary civilization, making humanity more powerful and themselves more powerful. People involved in blockchain care about decentralized trust issues, social equity issues, and so on.

Periscope: Will AI and Crypto branch into two paths, or will they intersect? If they intersect or move towards more extreme branches, what will we see on that day?

Vitalik:

The role of Crypto is to create a game, and the game you create may have many goals. Trading can be considered one game. Another example is the prediction market; this year, Polymarket (a prediction market project) has been quite successful.

Crypto can create a game that safely executes game rules through smart contracts, and AI can participate in this game. If only humans participate, sometimes the efficiency is not high enough. For example, in the prediction market, I have been playing quite a bit on Polymarket this year. I found that four years ago, their result quality was not very high, but this year it is much better than four years ago. Why? One reason is that liquidity is greater. Last year, it might have been $1 million or $10 million; this year, it might be $100 million or $200 million. But I also found that this year, in matters with low liquidity, the answers are also quite good.

So, it is very likely that AI is participating now. The reaction speed of AI is very fast. A person doing this needs to be on the computer 24 hours a day, watching all the news every minute and second. But an LLM, you let it run, and it can do it by itself.

I believe there will be more examples in the future, possibly in the social field or other areas. Crypto is a secure foundation, and through Crypto, a game can be created that ensures the rules of the game are fair. The role of AI is to participate.

Periscope: So it's not Crypto participating in the AI game, but AI participating in the Crypto game?

Vitalik: Yes.

Periscope: One day, if the ultimate power of artificial intelligence or "Big Brother" seeks to destroy humanity, would the Crypto kingdom you represent come to save humanity?

Vitalik:

This question is quite complex. The role of Crypto is to establish the rules of the game, not to solve specific problems.

Humans have many desires—to live longer, to have a more comfortable life, to go to Mars. To achieve these, we need to solve coordination problems between people. If you are on an island with only yourself and no one else, Crypto is completely useless. The only role of Crypto is to solve problems between people. But if there is only one person on the island, AI is useful. Through this example, you can see that Crypto cannot directly solve your problems, but it can indirectly solve your problems. Crypto is creating a game, but it still needs people, robots, or other entities to participate in these games.

If you want to see how Crypto can save the world, it cannot be just Crypto; it must be Crypto + something else. So what is Crypto +?

● The first possibility is Crypto + Decentralized AI;

● The second possibility is Crypto + a technology that can replace AI.

What technology can replace AI? The only answer is a deeper interaction between humans and computers. In the past two years, VR, AR, and the metaverse have become quite popular, such as Meta glasses. What are the characteristics of these technologies? The communication between the human brain and machines can become more efficient and have higher throughput.

When you wear Meta glasses, they can directly see where you are looking. Now computers can receive some of your consciousness; if through glasses, they can see your eyes and body, they will communicate directly with your subconscious.

An interesting point is that the communication flow between the left and right parts of a person's brain is not particularly high. If we can create a communication method between humans and machines that is particularly efficient, with sufficient flow and speed, the computer will truly become a part of you.

Why am I interested in this direction? Because there will definitely be something smarter than humans, whether in 10 years, 100 years, or 1000 years. But will this thing that is smarter than humans be an independent entity that surpasses us, or can we become a part of it? — I find the second option particularly interesting.

Periscope: We become a part of it?

Vitalik:

Yes, or it becomes a part of us, which is a merger— the technology of biology and silicon will merge together— this technology is the only superintelligence that we humans can participate in.

If we don't do this, the only possibility is that a single computer is smarter than all of us, and they will control the world, leaving humans with no power to influence it.

If this direction is to be pursued, it must be done in the right way. Right now, there is Neuralink (the brain-computer interface company founded by Musk), but this technology has a risk: a computer can read your thoughts, read your brain. If it is not open source, it is centralized, sending your information to a server. This means a large company can read your thoughts, which is very dangerous. So I hope that in both software and hardware, we have open source solutions that respect safety.

How does Crypto participate? The first is the business model. Open source technology always has a drawback: it's hard to find funding. If you create something centralized and self-controlled, there are many ways to make a lot of money. However, with open source technology, everyone can download and use it, and once used, they don't need to have any relationship with you. Its technology has advantages, but the downside is that making money is difficult. Crypto has many ways to respect open source while making money.

If we support some open source technologies through Crypto, it is possible to have more open source BCI, more open source artificial intelligence, and more open source everything.

Periscope: It sounds like AI architecture on Crypto?

Vitalik:

The business model can be on Crypto, and some Crypto technologies can be used to create another architecture.

One point I haven't mentioned is that there are some interesting new Crypto technologies recently, including PC (Programmable Cryptography) and FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption). The advantage is that you can create an AI that can compute with your private data, but no one else, no other computer knows your private data. It uses your data for computation but does not see what the data is. These technologies have been known to be possible since 1982, but they have now reached a stage where they can be applied more widely.

Periscope: In the field of artificial intelligence, who do you admire the most, and who do you dislike the most?

Vitalik:

Wow, this… there isn't a clear example. I respect those who maintain their principles over a long time. In the past five years, there have been many external changes, and many people change their minds. Not necessarily for their own reasons; most of the time, it's for bad reasons— for example, if a team I dislike has an idea, I need to have an idea to counter them.

There aren't many people willing to keep an open mind and have principles for a long time. If they do, I will respect them.

"If issuing a coin and creating an exchange is all we do, then this industry has failed."

Periscope: Given the recent popularity of artificial intelligence and its appeal to young talent, what advice would you give to tech experts who are ambitious but hesitant between career choices in blockchain and artificial intelligence?

Vitalik: The most important thing is what you are interested in.

Periscope: Objectively speaking, will the prosperity of artificial intelligence in the past two years cool down Crypto?

Vitalik:

There will definitely be some cooling. Some people who previously participated in Crypto have gone to participate in AI due to its development.

I find there are three types of people:

● The first type aims to do something significant, regardless of what it is; they just want to do something big, impactful, and be part of human history. Or to make more money.

● The second type is for specific reasons related to Crypto, such as caring about currency, open source issues, or concerns about trust and human freedom. They have always been on the blockchain side and will not go to AI.

● The third type wants to make money, but the quality of their work may be lower.

I have a concern: if particularly wise people do not engage in Crypto, those who remain in the Crypto field may not have any interesting ideas, and the only applications will be the financial applications that have been done for many years. This could lead to a situation— issuing a coin, creating an exchange; then issuing another coin, creating another exchange; then issuing another coin with a cute dog on it— these things are fun, but if they are the only things our industry does, then this industry has failed.

The challenge our industry faces is to create applications that are both meaningful and that many people enjoy participating in.

I have recently noticed that many people want to do this now. The years 2022 and 2023 are very dangerous periods; AI has succeeded, but Crypto has not yet succeeded. Everyone knows that AI's LLMs are particularly powerful and what can be done with ChatGPT. But Layer 2 has not yet emerged or is in a very early stage, and transaction fees are very high. So, the difference in what AI and Crypto can do is greatest in 2022 and 2023.

However, this year, the power of Crypto has increased significantly, and many developers are starting to want to create applications that are both meaningful and that many users enjoy participating in. If the Crypto field continues to succeed, many people will still choose to participate in Crypto.

Periscope: I told people in the Chinese venture capital industry around me that I would be meeting you today, and many asked me to ask you the same question: Why do you think the Ethereum ecosystem or the entire Web3 ecosystem still lacks practical application products after so many years?

Vitalik:

My answer is what I just said. Before this year, transaction fees were too high, some important technologies were not mature, account security issues were unresolved, privacy issues were unresolved, and many problems were not solved. So, before this year, our industry did not have enough technology to create applications that ordinary people could participate in. The only successful application is DeFi, partly because DeFi can earn more money.

If there is an opportunity to increase your money tenfold, even if there are technical difficulties, you would still be willing to participate. If there is a 30% chance that your account will be stolen, and if you encounter a problem, your money will be gone, but if you win, your money will increase tenfold, you are likely to still participate.

But if what you want to do is more ordinary, the goal is not to increase your money tenfold, but to protect your money, protect your identity, or participate in some other applications. If the technical difficulties and security issues are not resolved, you will not participate.

This year, we have finally started to address these issues. This year is the best time to create meaningful applications.

Periscope: Constantly trading coins and hoarding coins is not what you want?

Vitalik: No.

Periscope: What do you want? What do you want to push this world towards?

Vitalik:

I hope this world becomes fairer and more open, creating applications that can solve important trust issues. If you want to build a fair and open world, solving trust issues is the necessary first step. Why are many things not going well? Because everyone doesn't know who to trust.

You can look at the application cases of Crypto. In countries facing many financial problems, such as Argentina, they are particularly interested in Crypto.

● First, it is a reliable financial system where they can put their money, and their money won't just disappear one day.

● Second, they can connect with mainstream finance. Many people use Crypto; those who work for American or European companies can earn salaries at American and European levels and send money back to their countries for themselves or their families, participating in fairer global matters.

● Third, there are other applications. For example, people like to talk about identity or credit systems, but they all want to solve one problem, which is the trust issue, wanting to know who they can trust. There is now a topic: knowing who is a person and who is a robot.

If we solve this in a decentralized way, we can more easily create global, secure applications that everyone can use. This can help avoid a risk: the division of the world.

Periscope: It sounds like Crypto is more suitable for places lacking trust and fairness; AI is more suitable for places seeking greater human power— these are two completely different human ideals. Could it be that Crypto ignites countries like Argentina, while AI ignites countries like China and the U.S., resulting in different global maps of ignition?

Vitalik:

In the long term, we need to enhance capabilities. If we have a perfect, fair, and decentralized system, but the capabilities of the people doing things do not improve, after a while, we will still fall behind.

Technologies outside of Crypto, including AI and biological sciences, need participation from all over the world. But there are different ways to develop these technologies. If we want to use a decentralized and more open approach, Crypto may participate in part of it. In the short term, the adoption of Crypto will vary greatly between different countries.

For example, Argentina has basic financial issues. In the U.S., most of the time, these issues do not exist. The most useful aspect of Crypto for me is donating to some international charities. It is very difficult through bank machines, but very easy through Crypto. In developed countries, the most frequent users of this technology are those who particularly want to participate in international markets and societies. In smaller countries, the adoption of Appchains is more prevalent.

I don't know how these things will change in the long term.

Periscope: I have a very basic misunderstanding. For ordinary people, what is the difference between a centralized application and a decentralized application?

Vitalik:

I can give you a specific example. We recently have some decentralized SocialFi applications that have succeeded on Ethereum, with Lens and Farcaster being the two easiest to understand examples. What is the difference between Farcaster and Twitter?

On Twitter, first, its algorithm is completely opaque; second, if you think Twitter is bad and dislike what it is doing, and want to move to another application, your network disappears. Anyone dissatisfied with Twitter who wants to start something new has to start their user base from zero, and the network effect problem is particularly difficult to solve.

In Farcaster, the architecture is as follows— the first layer is a decentralized network, and the second layer is the interface where users can send messages and see messages from others. The most used client is called Warpcast, which is a decentralized app that you can download yourself and is very user-friendly. A user who has never participated in Crypto can use Warpcast. But if you don't like Warpcast and dislike what they are doing, Farcaster also has many other clients, such as Firefly. If you don't like Warpcast, you can move to Firefly, and you can participate in the Farcaster network through Firefly. The messages you send can be seen on Warpcast, and you can also see the messages sent by Warpcast users.

The decentralized underlying layer ensures that different clients can interact with each other, which can prevent Warpcast from becoming a monopoly.

This is an open machine where anyone can create a client. In the Farcaster ecosystem, the open architecture has already provided some users with significant advantages.

Periscope: What do you think about speculators in the Crypto industry? Why are there so many such people in this industry?

Vitalik:

Speculators exist in many fields, such as the stock market and sports betting. Many people have this habit.

What should our industry do? First, if some people enjoy engaging in gamified finance, I hope to create alignments where their participation results in benefits for their country and society.

Second, we need to have ways for them to expand their wealth in the long term. In most societies globally, people used to invest in real estate, but the real estate market is very unfair to many. People don't know if they are making money or losing money. If we can create financial products in the Crypto space that can earn money in the long term while being connected to the real economy, that would be great.

Why hasn't this succeeded before? First, regulations were not clear enough, but recently, many countries have clarified their regulations. Second, the technology needs to be secure enough.

If you can increase your assets tenfold, you would be willing to face various risks. But the real economy doesn't work that way; it might yield less than 3%, 8%, or 10%. If your returns are reasonable, you need to care about security issues. We have solved a bit of this now. I hope to provide better financial options for everyone.

"I don't have a nanny, driver, or bodyguard."

Periscope: You are very young and a billionaire; what is your current lifestyle like?

Vitalik:

Not much different from five years ago. I travel to different countries and participate in various events.

The main change is that more people ask to take pictures with me.

Periscope: Do you have a nanny, driver, or bodyguard?

Vitalik: None. Maybe at some big events, but most of the time, I don't.

Periscope: I see on social media, including Chinese social media, that you are often seen taking the subway in Singapore. Why do you always take the subway?

Vitalik: Because the subway in Singapore is really good.

Periscope: What about in other countries?

Vitalik: Other countries are different; some don't have subways or the subway is inconvenient, so I would take a taxi. If I can walk, I would choose to walk; I enjoy walking.

Periscope: Why do your bag and watch have cats on them?

Vitalik: Because cats are cute.

The author captured Vitalik showcasing his watch on-site.

Periscope: Did you buy them in Thailand?

Vitalik: No. The watch was a gift from a friend, and the compass is something I found on Amazon. The cat bag was a gift from my friend in Thailand.

Periscope: You mentioned in an interview that you often hear stories about people who are very wealthy but spend their money on private jets, helicopters, luxury sports cars, or other foolish things, and in the end, they have nothing. I remember thinking that this is so foolish. So when you became wealthy, did you ever entertain any foolish thoughts? Did you succumb to them or resist them?

Vitalik: Emm, I don't know how to answer that.

Periscope: In other words, did wealth ever lead you astray?

Vitalik: I don't think that way.

Periscope: Do you often check the amount in your bank account?

Vitalik: Not really.

Periscope: I'm surprised you can speak Chinese (without having lived in China). How did you learn and master this language?

Vitalik:

I started learning in 2013, right after I dropped out of university and began writing for Bitcoin Magazine. I decided to travel and see the Bitcoin world in China, the U.S., and Europe. At that time, I came across some articles about China discussing the Bitcoin community and projects, which were particularly interesting.

Many people told me that Chinese is the hardest language to learn. This was a particularly interesting challenge, so I started learning. Initially, I used language software, and in 2014, I came to China for the first time and began chatting with many Chinese friends. I just kept learning like that.

Periscope: You seem to know many languages, around six? Does knowing multiple languages help with doing Crypto?

Vitalik:

My best languages are English, Russian, and Chinese. After that, I learned French in school in Canada from 2014 to 2019. I taught myself a bit of German and Spanish. So about six languages; I only know a little bit of the other languages.

It actually does help. An interesting point is that European languages are relatively easier to learn as they are close to English, coming from Latin. Europeans tend to speak English, and sometimes on technical topics, they can express themselves better in English. But for those outside of Europe, it's not the same. Speaking Russian, Chinese, and a bit of Spanish in South America is particularly helpful.

Periscope: What are the three most important things you are thinking about right now?

Vitalik:

First, the development of the Ethereum ecosystem; what we need to do now to improve the development of the Ethereum ecosystem, applications, and community.

Second, some macro human issues we discussed, including AI.

Third, many smaller technical matters, like what I need to do today and what my next article will be about— many small issues.

Periscope: What do you think about the U.S. election and the two candidates? The results are about to be announced.** (Our conversation took place the day before the U.S. election results were announced.)

Vitalik:

Who wins today may not have a significant impact 20 or 30 years from now. There are some trends that will happen regardless of what occurs today. Even if it doesn't happen today, it may happen in 2028. If it doesn't happen in the U.S., it may happen in other countries. So, it mainly depends on some long-term trends and global trends. In the next ten years, the world's culture, technology, race, and economy will change significantly.

Periscope: As a cosmopolitan or a builder of some utopian community, you always try to break the old order and establish a new one. So how do you view the institution of marriage? Do humans still need marriage?

Vitalik:

This topic may change a lot in 50 years. Previously, people's goals were primarily economic security and having children. But now, at least in developed countries, there are no urgent economic issues, allowing people to think more about life and what they enjoy. Moreover, many people do not want or are unwilling to have children.

The internet has changed our social relationships significantly. Thirty years ago, moving from one city to another meant losing all your friends; that is not the case anymore. If circumstances change, our lives will also change significantly.

Periscope: Are you now a free person?

Vitalik: Sometimes I feel free, and sometimes I don't.

Periscope: Not free from what?

Vitalik: There are so many people in the Ethereum community. I always think about what they are thinking and what they want to do.

Periscope: Do you have fears?

Vitalik: I have a fear of bugs.

——————End——————

(After the conversation, Vitalik left the label from the tea bag on the table.)

The author captured the scene on-site.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。