Enforced lock-down thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic has provided ample opportunity for each of us to reflect on our “purpose” – especially if we typically identify our purpose with going to the office or other workplace (and the time spent on our daily commute).
In addition to the mandatory furlough, the inability to do the everyday things we usually take for granted can create some sort of existential crisis. So even though many of us continue to work from home, there is a very practical purpose in having a structured routine (including the all-important daily exercise allowance!) – for both physical and psychological needs.
But this time of reflection also provides an opportunity to reassess our priorities, and re-calibrate what is important to us, once we get through the pandemic. It feels that the paradox of having more time on our hands, but fewer options as to what to do with it, might mean we should be jealously protective of how and where we spend it once we get the chance.
So some of the factors we may consider in deciding how we spend our time and how we define our purpose might include:
what have I really missed, and what can I do without?
what will sustain me, and what will be a drain on my resources?
what can support my personal development, and what will hold me back?
what can I do independently, and what will require collaboration?
what has engaged me, and what has bored me?
what new skills have I had to learn, and what will continue to be relevant?
what do I wish I had done more of (or less of) before the lock-down?
While “time spent” shouldn’t be the defining criteria of our purpose, as a valuable (and finite) resource, how we allocate our time should be a significant measure of what is important to us, and what enables us to pursue our purpose.
Following the so-called roadmap to reopening the Victorian economy, this week I was sorely tempted to vent my anger and frustration at the situation we find ourselves in Melbourne – a situation in large part due to the failure of the hotel quarantine programme, which has been identified as the source of the community transmission, and the consequent devastating impact on the aged care and health care sectors. (Unlike our politicians and civil servants, I refuse to use the term “settings” – “settings” are what you use on a microwave oven…..). I was going to describe how our current Federal and State leaders decline to take specific responsibility for their respective Administration’s mistakes, while continuing to treat the citizens of Melbourne like a political football…. Instead, I decided to be more hopeful, and reflect on some of the positive aspects of the continuing lock-down.
First, most of us are still here, and most of us remain healthy – and although I have not socialized with family or friends for 6 months, I can still have Zoom calls and virtual drinks.
Second, despite the lack of social interaction, thanks to “no contact” front doorstep drop-offs, friends and neighbours have provided small gifts such as home-made bread and home-grown herbs and vegetables.
Third, on-line shopping has got a lot better, despite some of the shipping delays – on the downside, I probably won’t be in a hurry to revisit bricks and mortar retail….
Fourth, by not eating out, and by not using public transport, I’m saving money – some of which is being redirected to small luxuries such as dine-at-home restaurant meals and domestic gadgets.
Fifth, my local green space, Yarra Park is thriving, because the lawns are not being used as a car park several days a week – it’s actually encouraging more people to use it for its original purpose of public recreation.
Sixth, courtesy of the 1-hour daily exercise regime, on my walks I have been exploring parts of the City that I thought I knew well, often discovering new historical aspects or architectural features I had never noticed before (and all within a 5km radius of my home, of course).
Seventh, when I do venture out for food shopping, thanks to the limits on numbers, the supermarket is less crowded and the experience is actually far more relaxing than when having to shop in normal peak hours.
Eighth, the enforced and extended work-from-home regime means I have come to appreciate my domestic surroundings, even though it can get a bit claustrophobic being cooped up most of the time.
Ninth, I have found time to finish and release a new album on Bandcamp (thanks to the few generous souls who have actually paid to download it!).
Tenth, notwithstanding some testing days, I find that after nearly 25 years, my relationship with my significant other has proven to be remarkably resilient.
So, on reflection, I can think of far worse situations and locations to be in. I know I will get through this, and although things will never be “normal” again, I think I will have re-set my personal priorities and regained a sense of what is or isn’t important. It’s been a hard lesson (and continues to be a challenging experience), but hopefully it will bring long-term benefits.
Last week I was privileged to be a guest on This Is Imminent, a new form of Web TV hosted by Simon Waller. The given topic was Blockchain and the Limitations of Trust.
As regular readers will know, I have been immersed in the world of Blockchain, cryptocurrency and digital assets for over four years – and while I am not a technologist, I think know enough to understand some of the potential impact and implications of Blockchain on distributed networks, decentralization, governance, disintermediation, digital disruption, programmable money, tokenization, and for the purposes of last week’s discussion, human trust.
The point of the discussion was to explore how Blockchain might provide a solution to the absence of trust we currently experience in many areas of our daily lives. Even better, how Blockchain could enhance or expand our existing trusted relationships, especially across remote networks. The complete event can be viewed here, but be warned that it’s not a technical discussion (and wasn’t intended to be), although Simon did find a very amusing video that tries to explain Blockchain with the aid of Spam (the luncheon meat, not the unwanted e-mail).
At a time when our trust in public institutions is being tested all the time, it’s more important than ever to understand the nature of trust (especially trust placed in any new technology), and to navigate how we establish, build and maintain trust in increasingly peer-to-peer, fractured, fragmented, open and remote networks.
To frame the conversation, I think it’s important to lay down a few guiding principles.
First, a network is only as strong as its weakest point of connection.
Second, there are three main components to maintaining the integrity of a “trusted” network:
how are network participants verified?
how secure is the network against malicious actors?
what are the penalties or sanctions for breaking that trust?
Third,“trust” in the context of networks is a proxy for “risk” – how much or how far are we willing to trust a network, and everyone connected to it?
For example, if you and I know each other personally and I trust you as a friend, colleague or acquaintance, does that mean I should automatically trust everyone else you know? (Probably not.) Equally, should I trust you just because you know all the same people as me? (Again, probably not.) Each relationship (or connection) in that type of network has to be evaluated on its own merits. Although we can do a certain amount of due diligence and triangulation, as each network becomes larger, it’s increasingly difficult for us to “know” each and every connection.
Let’s suppose that the verification process is set appropriately high, that the network is maintained securely, and that there are adequate sanctions for abusing the network trust – then it is possible for each connection to “know” each other, because the network has created the minimum degree of trust for the network to be viable. Consequently, we might conclude that only trustworthy people would want to join a network based on trust where each transaction is observable and traceable (albeit in the case of Blockchain, pseudonymously).
When it comes to trust and risk assessment, it still amazes me the amount of personal (and private) information people are willing to share on social media platforms, just to get a “free” account. We seem to be very comfortable placing an inordinate amount of trust in these highly centralized services both to protect our data and to manage our relationships – which to me is something of an unfair bargain.
Statistically we know we are more likely to be killed in a car accident than in a plane crash – but we attach far more risk to flying than to driving. Whenever we take our vehicle out on to the road, we automatically assume that every other driver is licensed, insured, and competent to drive, and that their car is taxed and roadworthy. We cannot verify this information ourselves, so we have to trust in both the centralized systems (that regulate drivers, cars and roads), and in each and every individual driver – but we know there are so many weak points in that structure.
Blockchain has the ability to verify each and every participant and transaction on the network, enabling all users to trust in the security and reliability of network transactions. In addition, once verified, participants do not have to keep providing verification each time they want to access the network, because the network “knows” enough about each participant that it can create a mutual level of trust without everyone having to have direct knowledge of each other.
In the asymmetric relationships we have created with centralized platforms such as social media, we find ourselves in a very binary situation – once we have provided our e-mail address, date of birth, gender and whatever else is required, we cannot be confident that the platform “forgets” that information when it no longer needs it. It’s a case of “all or nothing” as the price of network entry. Whereas, if we operated under a system of self-sovereign digital identity (which technology like Blockchain can facilitate), then I can be sure that such platforms only have access to the specific personal data points that I am willing to share with them, for the specific purpose I determine, and only for as long as I decide.
Finally, taking control of, and being responsible for managing our own personal information (such as a private key for a digital wallet) is perhaps a step too far for some people. They might not feel they have enough confidence in their own ability to be trusted with this data, so they would rather delegate this responsibility to centralized systems.
The latest Startupbootcamp Virtual Demo Day covered startups in Sports and EventTech. Given the current pandemic lockdown and the lack of sporting events and public festivities in Melbourne (“Australia’s sporting and events capital”), the pitch night was sub-titled “The Comeback…”
As with similar startup programs running during the pandemic, it was remarkable how much the teams had achieved in the circumstances. The 10 startups that presented were as follows (website links in the names):
According to the founders, 30% of all fans leave events early – so they have identified an opportunity to re-purpose those empty seats. Rather than re-selling existing tickets, this platform is issuing new tickets for seats that are no longer being used. Already working with key festival promoters, the team say they are not encouraging flipping or scalping, nor are they competing with existing event ticketing outlets engaged by organisers. As well as issuing new tickets, FlipTix offers event upgrades. However, they also mentioned “pre-event” flipping services – which I assume is different to scalping? Finally, it wasn’t clear how FlipTix verifies that seats have been fully vacated – what about all-day tickets for the cricket, for example, where spectators are free to come and go (with pass-outs).
As sports clubs struggle to maintain connection with their fans under the limitations of lockdown, Benchvote drives engagement with team sponsors and brands to bring them closer to their fans. Essentially an SaaS campaign creation platform, Benchvote offers annual licenses and individual campaigns, and is seeking to engage with other consumer brands, not just sports and events.
Described as “The Sports Neobank”, Globatalent helps aspiring athletes to “sell” shares in themselves to fans and investors (in return for a proportion of their future income). The founders claim that 48% of young athletes lack sufficient funds to continue their sporting careers. With a background as talent scouts in professional tennis, the founders are familiar with the challenges faced by struggling players. While the model seems simple (essentially securitizing future winnings and sponsorship money), it raises a number of questions: do these investments represent financial securities (and all the regulation which that entails)? is it a form of modern slavery (however willing the participants)? does it lay the athletes open to risks associated with gambling such as manipulation and collusion? why wouldn’t fans invest in the clubs instead, with their talent development structures? how does it apply to professional sports such as AFL that have strict salary caps and player drafts? and is it more suited to individual rather than team sports?
The team presented data that suggests pubs and clubs waste 9-12% of their draught beer, because of their current systems. Not only does this mean lost sales and revenue, the lack of product consistency impacts brand Integrity. The founders believe that post-COVID there will be an even greater focus on cost controls within hospitality, with the added need to reduce waste and maintain consistency. Floteq comprises an IoT device at the point of delivery and service, to track volumes, sales, quality and consistency.
This is an app called “Fred” for race horse owners, to facilitate communications between stables and syndicates. Fred offers a subscription-based B2C model, with the opportunity for additional revenue streams (from sponsors and other industry participants). I’m not familiar with the racing industry, but I don’t see why owners can’t simply use existing social media (and crowdfunding platforms)?
This system helps blind and vision-impaired people to navigate indoor locations, even if they have never been there before. Designed for office buildings, shopping centres, university buildings and visitor destinations, it uses Bluetooth beacons operating on a standalone system, and can be up and running within 24 hours, complete with an analytics dashboard. Although originally intended for the vision-impaired, it can of course be used by anyone.
In recent years, fashion has “moved from the catwalk to social media”. TRENDii is an AI-powered fashion app and browser extension that allows users to “shop at the point of inspiration”. Aimed at fashion brands, publishers and consumers, TRENDii will rely on ad-based revenue, but with the ability to offer advertisers greater audience reach and context. The founders are also exploring audience partnerships and new verticals such as homewares and furniture.
This team is the Australian licensee for the IntelliCUP system for beverage point of delivery and dispensing. Pointing to poor UX at venues and events, the founders are positioning Intellicup as an integrated order, purchase and dispensing system, and are already undertaking client trials. Revenue will come from transaction fees, hardware sales, in-app purchases, and the sale of data and analytics.
Also referencing the challenges facing professional sport during COVID19, Humense is proposing an immersive on-field viewing experience for TV spectators. It brings on-field vision from a 20 camera system offering infinite angles and volumetric imaging, all viewed via VR headsets. The founders claim that this will be the future of sports broadcasting revenues.
The founders state that community and local sports clubs lack funds; yet sponsors face too much red tape. SportsCube is designed to help businesses to sponsor clubs, and the team is already working with clubs and corporate sponsors. The business takes a 15% commission or success fee (which is half of traditional agencies).
Content in Context 