Regenerative Finance

Mark Lurie:

Welcome to WTF, Crypto. I'm your host, Mark Lurie, and today, as with all days, we're going to peel back the layers of the crypto onion to understand what's really going on and how it affects you and what you're doing in crypto. Today, I'm very excited to have our next guest, Kevin Owocki. Kevin is of Gitcoin and Supermodular fame. Kevin, I'm really excited that you're here with us today.

‍

Kevin Owocki:

Yeah, really excited to be here.

‍

 Mark Lurie:

So today, we're going to dive into financing structures for public goods in crypto. It's an area called regenerative finance and regenerative funding, and Kevin is one of the experts on the topic. So could you start by just explaining a little bit about why you're such an expert and compelling guide on this subject, and why regenerative finance matters to everyday people who are getting into and diving deeper in crypto?

‍

Kevin Owocki:

Yeah. So I suppose I'm mostly known as the founder of Gitcoin, which is a Web3 crowdfunding platform and it's now a DAO. I'm the founder of Gitcoin, but I've actually disaffiliated from leadership there. The DAO is now in charge of governing Gitcoin. So Gitcoin has funded $50 million worth of public goods for the Ethereum ecosystem, things like EIP-1559, things like ETH2 clients, and a lot of the software that you use in the ecosystem has gone through Gitcoin grants and has given the first check to some of the most prominent projects in the ecosystem. I think our greatest hits are like WalletConnect, 1inch Exchange, Yearn Finance, Uniswap, and so we funded what matters to the Ethereum ecosystem, and I think that the fact that we funded $50 million worth... I'm using we as if I'm still there. It's a force of habit from working for five years.

‍

 Mark Lurie:

It's the royal we.

‍

Kevin Owocki:

Yeah. But funding what matters-

‍

 Mark Lurie:

You never stop being part of a DAO.

‍

Kevin Owocki:

Yeah, exactly. In spirit, I'm there, but I'm not leading it is the key point because it's a DAO now, but yeah, so we've funded what matters and in doing so, we've been working on a mechanism called quadratic funding, which is a way of funding what matters in a democratic way, collective intelligence way, multiplayer funding mode of funding what matters, and that's what I think makes me a credible speaker on regen. So there's this meme during DeFi summer about degening into all these different yield products and all that kind of stuff, and I think that that's fun and I've had some degen nights out with my friends and I get the prospect of that, but it's not something you can do over the long-term. To degen means to degenerate.

And so how can we use crypto to regen, to regenerate the world because that's what's going to be long term viable for the ecosystem. Degen projects, by definition, self-terminate because they're degenerating and so I think the future of crypto and Web3 is regen projects, things where resource capacity goes up over time, and I think what makes me a credible speaker in that space is founding Gitcoin and having delivered $50 million of funding to what matters in the Ethereum ecosystem, but now, there's a whole movement of regens who are trying to use crypto for pro-social, pro-environmental causes for supporting their family in a reliable way without getting rugged by Ponzi schemes or influencers or malware and stuff like that. So I really think regen is the future of crypto and I'm just trying to regen pill people before the ecosystem catches up.

‍

 Mark Lurie:

Awesome. Well, thank you, and for the audience, Gitcoin really is a foundational, I don't want to say product, movement that helps funds projects in crypto, open source projects in particular in new and innovative ways, and one of the most novel parts of that, or at least one of the most prominent parts of that is quadratic funding. Could you give the audience a little bit of context for what quadratic funding is and why it's such an interesting mechanism?

‍

Kevin Owocki:

Yeah, I can. Well, the first thing I would say is don't be scared. It sounds really mathy. The word quadratic scares people off. I like to call it democratic funding when I'm talking to an audience that doesn't have a master's degree in math, and basically, just the way it works is that on Gitcoin, every quarter, there's a matching pool that is raised, usually between $1 million and $3 million, and then they match contributions from the crowd to the crowd's favorite projects, but there's a twist. It's not one-to-one matching on the dollar per dollar basis. It's matching based off of the number of contributors.

And what's really special about this is that, Mark, if you raise $100 from 100 contributors and I raise $100 from one contributor, you get 99% of the matching pool because you've got way more of a base of support from the ecosystem, and this is what's really special about quadratic funding is that if I'm going to be the hundred and first dollar into your project, I'm going to get matched by tens or hundreds of dollars for that $1. So you can give a dollar and you can have $100 worth of impact. So it really gets people off their butts in order to fund what matters in their community, and I think that that's a really special thing because we want to fund public goods in a democratic way.

We don't want the matching pool to just go where the rich people want it to go, but we want the poor and the many, their needs to outweigh the rich and the few, and so this is an example of a collective intelligence mechanism that can help communities regenerate their public spaces, their ecosystem spaces, and it's just a really elegant mechanism for doing so, and I just have to say at this point that Glen Weyl, Vitalik Buterin, Zoë Hitzig have been the inventors of quadratic funding. They wrote a paper on it in 2018 and I'm just like the hipster meme lord web dev that they brought it to production. So I'm standing on the shoulders of giants.

‍

 Mark Lurie:

Okay. And so this is really interesting because the way that mechanism works is that the more people vote for something that they want to support, exponentially more money gets funded there, and so essentially, instead of the people with the deepest pockets deciding, it's people with the deepest pockets pre-deciding to fund what is most desired by the most number of people, and that is super interesting and has a lot of implications, campaign finance, art, just a whole open source software, which of course, Gitcoin is focused on, a whole set of things and I'd love to dig into those, but before we do, could you give a few examples of regenerative regen and a little more concretely, what are some examples of things that you're focused on that you would consider regen?

‍

Kevin Owocki:

Yeah. Well, I'm happy to do that, but I'll just say that I'm not the curator of what's regen and I have no intentions of gate keeping the movement, and that's for better or for worse. I think CoinDesk wrote an article and they said regen's more of a vibe than a hard and fast category. I was like, all right. Well, I guess it's a vibe now. My definition would be resource capacity goes up and when I talk about resource capacity, I'm not just talking about financial resources. I'm talking about spiritual capital and intellectual capital and social capital and material capital. So in a way, we're building decentralized financial systems to support our material capital, of which I think like KlimaDAO is a great example, using carbon credits on chain.

I think Gitcoin's a great example of funding intellectual capital with crypto. So quadratic funding is a way of funding the intellectual capital that matters to the poor and the many. I think that Proof of Humanity, which is this really amazing identity DAO on Web3 that streams UBI to its community members is regenerating communities. There's people in Argentina who live off of UBI, and so we've actually written a book called ImpactDAOs, projects that are using Web3 to create impact, and we found 100 different, this is 2022, so it's either more than 100 now because as time goes on, more people will start Impact DAOs, but then that was in a bull market. So maybe there's less now. Anyway, around 100 different impact DAOs that I would describe to be regen projects, but again, I'm not the gatekeeper of what's regen. I'm just curating the vibe, to put it in CoinDesk's word, I guess.

‍

 Mark Lurie:

Makes sense. Okay, cool. So it sounds like to you is regenerative and all language is something that evolves over time and it sounds like regen is a term that is still gelling. So do you think it's more about the outcomes and the public goods or public impact that a project is working towards, or do you think it's the means by which they go about furthering that goal and the way they do it?

‍

Kevin Owocki:

I think it's both is the short answer to your question. I think it's both a means and an end. The cycle that I like to call this the regen or the degen to regen pipeline is that you enter Web3 thinking you're going to get rich quick off some NFT or some yield farm or whatever, and then something happens-

‍

 Mark Lurie:

Always a little harder than it seems.

‍

Kevin Owocki:

Yeah. I remember telling my wife that I was making 10% week over week with my yams, which was a yield farm in 2021. I was all excited about it and she was like, you're farming digital yams, Kevin, but I sincerely believed that it was going to work when I was doing it. Anyway, so the degen to regen pipeline is that you do something like that, it doesn't work out, you're down 15%, 20%, but then you find a DAO, you find a community, you find a sense of purpose, you find people who you vibe with and WAGMI, we are going to make it, we're going to make it together over time, and so I'd say for me, it's creativity in multiplayer mode.

And I don't mean in broadcast mode where you have someone who has a huge audience of 100,000 people and you're just one of them, but I mean true multi-player mode where you're vibing together in a community, and that's been my degen to regen path and I've talked to dozens of other people who have had similar paths with Web3, and so now I think that the metagame is helping people along their degen to regen pipeline, their path. We just wrote a book called and self-published it. I'm holding it up on the screen for anyone who's watching on video. It's called Stuff That Crypto OGs Know, and so this is a non-profit.

I guess we're not technically incorporated as a non-profit, but we're not making any profit off of this. It's just a public good for the ecosystem to help people become multi-cycle crypto people. So ride the waves between bull and bear, avoid getting blown up and learn to be a multi-cycle long-term thinker in the space and just help people along that path and not get wiped out in their first whatever they do in the ecosystem I think is what we've turned our focus towards.

‍

 Mark Lurie:

Makes sense. So important. There's so many battle scars and lessons in crypto, and having been through it a few cycles, it's almost like you need to go through a few cycles to become a veteran so that you know how to avoid landmines, and so anyway, we can convey that institutional knowledge to those entering is important.

‍

Kevin Owocki:

I have children and whenever I tell them not to do something because they're going to get hurt, they just do it anyway and then they learn by not listening to my advice. So one of my meta fascinations here is how many people can we tell that, hey, if you're following an influencer and they tell you this coin is the next 100X, it's not because it's actually the next 100X. It's because it's a bag that they hold. How many people will actually believe me when I tell them that versus they have to learn it themselves, and so I don't know. There's a little meta commentary on how people learn there that I think is fascinating.

‍

 Mark Lurie:

One takeaway I have from lessons from past cycles is that one heuristic to be successful in a new space and even to make money if making money as your goal is actually to find something that you feel purposeful about, pursue that, and on the way, you'll actually often end up knowing more about the insides of how things work and improve your ability to perhaps make money or have these material goals actually because you have a specific purpose in mind. The probably base book on this is Man's Search For Meaning by Viktor Frankl, and Viktor Frankl was a psychiatrist who was put in the concentration camps in World War II and so he wrote something of a treaties on what determined who survived and who didn't, and it was very obvious to him that the people who persisted and survived were those who had purpose.

It almost didn't matter what that purpose was. Could be seeing a child, it could be figuring out a grand equation, it could be writing a book, and the people who maintained a purpose were able to persist and survive through the concentration camps, and the greatest cause, one of the greatest cause of deaths obviously besides the straight-up murder, was people just giving up, their souls giving up. It's a really great book about the meaning of life and what it really points out is that purpose is so important to surviving and eventually being successful, and so that's something I find very interesting about what you're doing is it's giving people a purpose as they're going through blockchain instead of just degenerating down this weird heuristic of let me just try silly things and make money and if it doesn't work out, screw this, I'm leaving.

‍

Kevin Owocki:

I think there's somewhere in here, there's a nugget about intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. I think in 2017 when I got into the space, the ICO bubble was all about these people concocting these rational economic plans without realizing that people aren't rational economic actors. You take a person and you put it in a token, you don't get out an action. People are way actually more intrinsically motivated than they are extrinsically motivated, which I think is one of the things that people didn't anticipate in 2017, but Gitcoin, again, I'm no longer in leadership at Gitcoin, but when we started it, we were always very clear that our mission was to grow open source and then it became fund public goods and now it's fund what matters is the meme.

And it's that intrinsic motivation that I think people keep coming back to that purpose during the hard times, and crypto, it's four or five year cycles and there's one cycle or there's one year of rocket moon goes up and then it's just chop and down the other four years, and if you're going to survive as a multi-cycle person, I think you have to find something that intrinsically motivates you. For me, it's purpose. I'm in my late thirties and it's about making the world a better place. That's the stage of my life I'm in, but it can also be intrinsic motivation for other needs.

I've heard people say that you should hold NFTs not because you think that your number will go, you'll make more money on them, but hold ones that you genuinely intrinsically enjoy aesthetically because then you're going to be able to hold on during the hard times a little bit better, and I think that's another example of intrinsic motivation in some senses being more important than extrinsic motivation, but I'm very privileged to have my housing and my food and shelter and needs, all that already provided for, but I think that once you get to a certain level of comfort, then intrinsic motivation in some ways becomes more important than extrinsic.

‍

 Mark Lurie:

It's interesting that you bring up the case of art because the profit maximizing heuristic is actually the same as you described. It's really hard to predict what art is successful, but if you just collect art that you really love, it's actually the best way to potentially make a profit 30, 40 years later without thinking about what other people are going to value, and I guess the issue is a lot of these purpose-driven goals, that's not the case.

There's a mismatch between the outcome you want to generate and the funding mechanism to get there and the funding mechanism that makes it economically sustainable, and so I'd love to dive into some of the experiments you're aware of to better align incentives and funding so that these purposeful projects can survive sustainably. We've talked about quadratic funding. We could talk about that with respect to campaign finance, we could talk about it with respect to art, but I'm curious what other financing mechanisms you've seen and think of promising that could be used to propel efforts towards developing public goods.

‍

Kevin Owocki:

So public goods are the things that we all use, but no one pays for, clean air, open source software, privacy technology, things like that. There's way more. During the pandemic, I was talking about herd immunity as a public good, and the thing is that because you don't pay for it, because you don't participate in a market economy, you take it for granted, but then when it's gone and you really need it, you're like, shit, it'd be great to have some clean air right now or transportation networks or open source software that could do this so I don't have to pay Microsoft $200 license or whatever, and so I think that people intrinsically value public goods, but when they get rugged, when they don't have them and they need them, then that's when they realize, shit, we've been taking this for granted.

And one of the things that we like to talk about in the regen Web3 spaces, that if we're maximally successful, then people will be able to pay their mortgage by working on public goods. So open source software is actually a great example of this. $400 billion per year in economic value is created by open source software economic value, and this is a study in 2014, so it's almost, it's probably 10X at this point more, but the problem is that open source software developers can't get paid to work on open source because it's the source code's available for free and who's going to pay for it when the source code's available for free, and so there's this massive asymmetry between value creation and value captured for public goods, a lot of public goods, that they're just not well funded.

And if you're an open source software developer, then you have to go work for JP Morgan Chase during the day and then you work on open source at night away from your family. It's not really fair, but that's just the way the economic system is set up. So what if we could open source software developers could get paid just for working on open source and not have to go get the job in private industry is one of the apexes of where we're going, and Web3 is global coordination networks and it makes sense to fund our own public goods and then figure out how we can export that more to the world from there. So let's just stay with the open source software example there. How can people get paid to work on open source? Some of the mechanisms I'm really excited about are obviously quadratic funding. There's also retroactive public goods funding. Have you heard about that?

‍

 Mark Lurie:

Yes, but it would be great if you'd describe it.

‍

Kevin Owocki:

Yeah. So the idea is basically to give retroactive rewards to people who have created public goods, and the idea here is that it's easier to decide in hindsight what is a valuable public good than it is when a project just launches. I don't know if it's going to make it or not, and so if we give retroactive rewards to people who have created public goods, then over time, if those retroactive rewards become enough, then what you can do, and this is where things get really weird and it's even as someone who's been thinking about this for two years, I still get topsy-turvy and excited when I think about this, is imagine you built a popular open source software repository.

And you could get retroactive public goods reward fundings of, let's just call it a hundred million dollars for your package. Let's abstract away where that's coming from at some point, but at this point, but we'll come back to it. If there's a hundred million dollar exit at the end of open source software creation, not only can I work on it now, but I could probably finance my project now. I could go to an angel or a VC and be like, yo, retroactive public goods funding, I see a market opportunity to create this public good. I'm going to work on it, and you could point the whole ecosystem of venture investing and angel investing.

Which is really good at funding the next dog social network or photo app or whatever or NFT project, and you could point it at what truly matters, which are these public goods, and I think that is a really interesting way of thinking about how we could could fund what matters in our communities, and so I said, let's just abstract away where that money comes from at this point and I'll come back to it. Well, let's come back to it now. So Optimism, which is a popular layer too in the Ethereum community, just did a retroactive public goods funding reward where they just dropped $20 million on the Ethereum ecosystem, people who created public goods, and that's not chump change.

And what's cool about Optimism is that they have sequencer fees and built into the Optimism governance structure, they're actually going to take a lot of their sequencer fees. Sequencer fees, they're like gas fees on the Ethereum network, but for a layer two. So they're a sustainable, legitimate, and pretty fucking big source of funding, and in this layer two's constitution in their governance, they're going to keep rewarding people who create public goods of the ecosystems. You're like, this isn't just a pie in the sky theory at this point. They're actually proving that retroactive public goods are possible. So I don't know. I think retroactive public goods are really exciting. There's a bunch of other coordination mechanisms, but just QF and retro PGF are the ones I'm excited about now.

‍

 Mark Lurie:

The issue with this funding mechanism, and I'd love to talk through a few more, is it puts all the risk on the person developing. They don't know that they're going to get retroactive. They don't know that they're going to get funding for what they're doing, even if they're successful. You take other examples of where that's worked, let's say the XPRIZE, and the first XPRIZE type thing was the British government offered some enormous reward for someone who could create a clock that was accurate, a timekeeper that was accurate at sea, which is tough because obviously, you can't use a pendulum.

The boat's moving and the gear is expand and contract because of the humidity and you're going all over the world. So that was a big issue, and you can't tell longitude and thus you can't navigate unless you have a very accurate timekeeper to latitude easily. North Star can't tell longitude, and it created an enormous amount of energy and people trying to figure this out. There's a great book on it. With an XPRIZE situation, you have a prize, you have something to shoot for. With retroactive funding, it's tough as a financing mechanism because you don't even know if what you're doing is going to get a prize, much less if you're going to get it, and yet the builder has to finance that risk themselves. It's a tough thing to overcome for it to be really the driver of purposeful innovation.

‍

Kevin Owocki:

I think that's a really important point. A lot of what we're doing in Web3 is about building a killer ecosystem. It's not about building a killer app, it's about building a killer ecosystem. That's something Joe Lubin said in 2019, and I think that it's profoundly true. The first people that this stuff is going to help is the people who are privileged enough to be able to take a risk, and it's just an order of operations thing that that's where we start, but once you build retroactive public goods funding, well, you can start to build in an ecosystem of venture capitalists and angel investors who are funding public goods.

And so you've got financing at the earlier stage, you can start to build in hypercerts, which are ways of tracking impact, and then you financialize those tracking of impacts so that earlier, you can get liquidity on the impact that you're creating. Once we have infrastructure for hiring people at DAOs, maybe you're not a founder of a public goods project, but maybe you're their first employee or their hundredth employee, and so you can do work for them. So I would say that your point is extremely valid and important, and I wish that we didn't have to start with the people who have the privilege to take risks, but we do.

It's an order of operations thing, but I'd say look past just the initial idea in the app and think about the ecosystem that will be built around it. If there's enough money in this stuff, then it'll be built around it, and then I think you actually get to a point where everyday people can start to be affected by this economic gravity sea well, this shelling point that has been created, and one of my biggest concerns and things that I think about is, okay, I'm pretty certain at this point after doing this for six years that we can fund open source software this way, but I'm fucking privileged as shit. I have a computer science degree and no student loans and I live in Boulder, Colorado.

What about someone who doesn't have all those things and they live in some dilapidated neighborhood in a city that I don't even know about, that in their community, there is no money in their community. How do we fund their public goods? That's the true point of privilege that I wonder about, okay, how can we take these mechanisms that are working decently well in open source software and how do we take them to the real world and how do we take them to truly impoverished communities? So I think there's a way to go on that.

And the reason my book, so I wrote this book called GreenPilled: How Crypto Can Regenerate The World, and every once in a while, someone will put me on a panel called How Crypto Is Regenerating the World, and I'm like, I'm fucking cringing because it's not happening yet, but this is how it could happen and this is the path that we're trying to blaze ahead, and so always to make a distinction between what we're able to do right now and the change we're trying to create right now and the dominoes that would have to fall to truly help people who aren't as privileged as me.

‍

 Mark Lurie:

Yeah, Couple things there. First, I think one of the most impactful things you can do is proof of concept and show that something's actually working. If you can do that, then it can be pulled out into the real world. It's just much easier for that to happen. So I think it's still meaningful just to figure it out within crypto before it pulls out. What if next time, this campaign finance report for form people look at quadratic funding and say, Hey, maybe the government should put up a pot of a hundred million dollars and then donate it based on how many small donations from individuals campaigns are able to raise instead of having candidates have to fund from $5,000 donations and from whales and bundlers, and they need somewhere to point to in order for that to happen.

So I think what is happening in crypto is actually quite important, and maybe it's okay not to worry about pulling into the world yet, but stepping back to retroactive funding, you bring up a great point, which is once you have an outcome specified, there is going to be some sort of retroactive funding and there is some amount of money at the end. People can potentially offset that risk in an ecosystem. Maybe there's a new set of financiers who are actually willing to bet on individuals because they believe that that thing will be retroactively funded, and so you can offset that risk, and you're right, just an ecosystem needs to be built around it, but any type of risk and uncertainty in theory can be disaggregated.

‍

Kevin Owocki:

In a lot of ways, I've shifted from, I think that I'm pretty good at rapid prototyping, which is one skill of going from zero to one. I'm pretty bad at writing maintainable code and documenting my code, but I can shift to production pretty fucking fast. So it's been about knowing my limits of what I'm good at and what I'm not, and Gitcoin is now run by a bunch of people who are better at, I'm good at zero to one and they're better at one to 10. So they actually have really solid, if I'm building, to use a big bad wolf analogy, if I'm building a straw house, they're building at least a sticks and stones house or at least a metal house, and so it's about finding your highest purpose of what you're good at, what your skills are good at.

And then letting other people do the things that they're best at, and that's what coordination looks like, but now these days, what I'm trying to do is stimulate a movement around this stuff. So it was really lonely building Gitcoin in the beginning because no one knew what we were doing. We're not a DeFi project, we're not NFTs. Public goods, what's that, but now there's a whole, there's hundreds of us and it feels way less lonely now, and so I've moved on from being the zero to one prototyper to being the person who's stimulating a movement, and that's a lot of fun, and actually run a podcast called The GreenPill Podcast. Your audience can check it out at greenpill.party, and we've done 100 episodes about how crypto could regenerate the world.

‍

 Mark Lurie:

Yeah. Well, I think anyone who's interested in regenerated finance and wants to double click into this should go check out yours. A lot more examples. This is just a scratch of the surface. Any others? If you think back to those episodes, any other funding mechanisms you thought were novel or interesting?

‍

Kevin Owocki:

Yeah. So I'm really excited about certs. Hypercerts are like, do you know about carbon credits at all, by any chance?

‍

 Mark Lurie:

I do in the traditional sense.

‍

Kevin Owocki:

Yeah. So carbon credits are a certificate that says, I took 10 tons of carbon out of the atmosphere, or maybe I took some action that averted 10 tons of carbon being emitted into the atmosphere, and then you put that and you financialize it, and then you sell it to JetBlue who marks it up by 1,000X and sells it to consumers. Well, so hypercerts are like carbon credits, but they're on chain, so they're NFTs and they can be impact on any vector. So basically, instead of just like I took 10 tons of carbon out of the atmosphere, it can be I fixed 10 potholes in my community, I helped 10 little old ladies cross the street, I funded 10 months of open source software, I did 10 units of longevity research, whatever impact factor you want, and so what's really cool about hypercerts, I think, is creating a decentralized marketplace to track impact.

And once you've done that, once you have those 100 impact DAOs that I talked about earlier that are emitting hypercerts, then what you can do is if you can generate buy pressure, and again, I'm going to ask everyone to just trust me on this. We'll come back to how the buy pressure is generated in a second, but generate buy pressure for those hypercerts, what you've done is you've taken every impact DAO and you've given them a business model because they're emitting impact and they have buy pressure for that impact. Now, think about how NGOs and nonprofits work. They basically have the work that they do in communities to create impact and they have a bunch of photographers and they have social media, and then they take that over to donors, high net worth donors, and they say, look at how virtuous we are.

Look at all these photos, but they don't really have proof of impact. They don't have proof of virtue, they have virtue signaling. So every NGO and nonprofit is 60% fundraising to high net worth donors and 20% administrative overhead and 20% actually creating impact. What if you could blow away all the administrative overhead and the donor stuff and you could just create impact and get rewarded proportionally to the amount of impact that you have? You just fundamentally changed how impact DAOs work or nonprofits work to make them more accountable to their communities, and I think that's really powerful because early days of Gitcoin, when we were running the crowdfunding platform, we made no money off of the crowdfunding platform, the public goods funding stuff. We had to run a whole nother business unit around virtual hackathons.

Gitcoin had 300,000 software developers in it, and we know that marketing departments know how to play for hackathon sponsorships. So we'd sell that and we would subsidize the public good stuff with the revenue from the other. So what if you didn't have to run a whole nother side of the house that generates revenue is the big idea with hypercerts and you could just create impact and get rewarded for that, and so that's a mechanism that I'm really excited about and it actually fits in with the retroactive public goods funding stuff because if I'm creating impact today and in 20 years, I think there might be a hundred million dollar reward, I'm taking a big risk across that chasm, but if I can financialize that impact today and sell it to someone else, then I'm de-risking it a little bit too.

‍

 Mark Lurie:

Awesome. Great. Well, so as we tie off here, let's just go through the things the people can do if they want to learn more from you or follow you. So you have a couple books, you have the podcast, you're on Twitter, presumably. Can you help people give us a final shill for the various ways people can learn more?

‍

Kevin Owocki:

The final shill sounds so ominous. So I'm on Twitter. I'm most active on Twitter. I am half shit hosting and half thought leading, and Owocki is my last name, O-W-O-C-K-I. You can find me at twitter.com/owocki. I am the host of The GreenPill Podcast, which you can find at greenpill.party, and let's see. We've self-published a couple books at this point, the GreenPill book, How Crypto Could Regenerate the World, ImpactDAOs, the projects that are actually doing it, and a book called Stuff Crypto OGs Know, that it's all about how to become a multi-cycle thinker, long-term thinker, long-term greedy person in Web3, and how to not get blown up by your first rug pull, or if you do get blown up, at least make it survivable. That's a lot of resources. Follow me on Twitter though, that's where our most active, twitter.com/owocki.

‍

 Mark Lurie:

Great. Well, thank you so much for joining us today and sharing your knowledge with us. Really appreciate it.

‍

Kevin Owocki:

Yeah. It was fun.