all right so we're going to start on
time I guess and feel free to because
this is very loan talk like two hours
I'm not going to do this alone so you're
going to krauser's to talk please scan
the QR code here or just if you are on
laptop or something go to slider calm
and enter without the hash sign on one
Oh 101 which is very easy to remember
and so either by scanning the QR code or
going to slider to come one zero one
zero one UK into this anonymous chat
room feel free just to start asking me
questions like now and like each other's
questions so the idea is that the more
people like the question the higher the
question will go on the list and so I'll
know that how many people here are
interested in one particular aspect of
the talk so that I can just dive into it
and of course feel free to raise your
hand at any given time and ask me
questions so this two hours will be
entirely interactive and if I can't get
to all your questions by the end of two
hours and apologies in advance but I
think we'll try to just talk about all
the different aspects that radical
exchange based on what people are
interested in and so I'll just start
then and I'll just flip back to the
slider questions every couple of slides
so my name is ultra tongue and my day
job is Thomas digital Minister but I'm
on vacation right now because there's a
national vacation day it's time as
national day and so I'm wearing another
hat as a board member to radically
exchange which is a foundation as well
as a movement and so radical exchange in
in a nutshell is the idea to use
mechanisms design to find ways for
people to collaborate across difference
sounds simple right in any case the
regular exchange foundation is a
registry in New York and is responsible
for just advocating that various ideas
starts from the book radical markets but
now has grown into all sort of different
things and we sent speakers to speak at
academic and business conferences and
DEF CON obviously
and also if you see this logo rxc we're
looking for designers that can do better
logo but that's our logo for a time
being and so this is our like standard
slide set but I'll just skip that if you
want you can look it up online and I'll
just talk some my personal anecdotes and
stories about how I encountered this rxc
idea and how I'm deploying in my day job
as well as you know my non-date job
activities so in my day job which is you
know minister of a cabinet
we're often faced with this when
emerging technologies come there's
various different organizations with
different agenda and so whenever there's
a new technology maybe there will be
people who care more about the economic
aspect the development of economy but
there will be also people who care more
about the social justice or
sustainability of the environment and so
on and Korea public service which is
this part absorb all the tension of all
those different organizers and try not
to break the social trust but they
remain largely anonymous and had to talk
in a kind of one-to-one fashion to all
those different organizers but now
because if there's a new technology will
not really new but new ish technology
called hash tag and that becomes kind of
the nightmare of public service in
liberal democracies everywhere because
with the hash tag you know hash tag me
to hash tag climate strike hash tag
anything DEFCON 5 you can just organize
random people out of the internet and
try to push for a particular agenda with
no obvious person leading it and so this
traditional way of institution which you
just meet with one representative of one
particular movement and try to strike a
balance no longer works because there
may be imagined ideas and emergent
organizations everywhere and so the idea
of institution standing in the progress
of innovation become kind of very trendy
and so which is why we're now rethinking
of how to use institutions to amplify
technologies and use technologies also
to amplify the efficiency of
institutions instead of trying to work
kind of in a zero sum game we're
designing a new set of institutions in
works of buckminster fuller the idea
when you're looking at it out broken
institution is not to fight it it's not
to try to fix it and so on
it's instead just to try to find
something new that makes the old one
obsolete and that's exactly what I'm
doing my day job and so it's very much
within the spirit of radical exchange to
just find institutions that reinforce
the institution with new technologies
that makes people behave in a more
pro-social manner so I'll just use one
example there's this institution which
is my working condition called radical
transparency when I became the digital
minister three years ago I made a deal
who is the premier saying that all the
meetings even internal meetings that I'm
a chair must be published entirely
online as a transcript two weeks after
the fact and all the lobbyists or the
media everybody who just meet me must
also agree to this radical transparency
idea and so if you're interested the
protocol is written in visit a PDW which
spells out exactly how the transcript is
to be published but it's then coupled
with the institution a physical space
called the social innovation lab in
Taiwan and this is where everybody can
meet me on Wednesday stare same office
hour so it could be booked online or you
can just walk in and every Wednesday
from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. you can just
book 40 minutes at my time and talk
about anything but the only condition as
I said is that it will be uploaded to
this website called state so if you
could over say it you will easily find
that after I become the additional
minister I've talked with you know 4,000
people over 1,000 occasions and on
200,000 speeches and so before when I
talk with lobbyists and media without
this radical transparency protocol and
people are inclined to talk about things
that suits their private interest people
are inclined to lobby in their favor
often at the detriment of the entire
society or environment so benefit of the
public benefit but because I made that
into my working condition that everybody
must agree to a radical transparency
protocol if you look at a transcript of
people coming to my office hour actually
everybody talked about public benefit
everybody talked about the global goals
everybody talks about sustainable
development and the reason is that
people know that their ideas will become
public part of the Commons and they must
also relinquish copyright for everybody
else to pick up on those ideas and so
just this very simple flip in the
institutional default of open
transparent by default changes people's
behavior and people are much more
inclined to just reveal what's their
ideas have to do to encourage other
people's idea instead of doing a
zero-sum game trying to lobby things
into their favor and so this is one of
the examples of how institution
technology together can change people's
relations so that people who work
against each other can then be moved to
to work together and so rxe is very very
interesting engaged
we put artists up front so is a
convention of people who have a
different imagination of life of society
as well as entrepreneurs activists
thinkers and so on and so the idea is
just to have this safe space where
people can propose all sort of very
weird ideas and this for example in my
office our there's just random people
who just put those I don't know
self-driving vehicles they're vehicles
that are robots and if you hop on one
and tell you where you want to give it
we'll try a few there but they're
tricycles and they're very slow and so
they come to me and say you know
ministry would like to just ride on one
of our tricycles even though he bumps
into wars out of design and I'm like
well and and that then they assured me
they're from MIT Media Lab they assure
me that they're really slow so if it
bumps into was nobody gets hurt which is
good I guess but the idea of showing
this as a social object in a open space
and welcoming artists and intrapreneurs
is that people can see this but have a
very different take I remember when
we're on this open hackathon where we
showed as self-driving vehicles and
trying to work out because it's open
source and open hardware how to fork it
to various different uses there's just a
elderly couple that went from the nearby
flower market and they just bought some
pots of flowers and they look very
artistic and so you know maybe I would
hippies know with all due respect
and then they just look into these
self-driving vehicles and they're like
you know what are you doing with those
shopping carts and we try to explain
that these are not really shopping carts
but they think they look just like
shopping carts in a supermarket and so
they're like this must be shopping carts
and what are doing with them and so we
have to explain things in terms of
shopping carts and say okay these
shopping carts follow you around if you
wanted to and so they just put some
flowers into the shopping cart and ask
us right spot if we can reprogram the
shopping carts so that whenever it's
full Islam is another one to form a
fleet so that they can follow them
around in the flower market and
obviously it's not programmed to do that
it's programmed to be a taxi service
essentially but it's open source the
theoretical easier there's no limitation
of not doing that right so quite a few
entrepreneurs around the time thought it
may actually be a good idea to just
repurpose them as the way the elderly
couple imagined it but they would have
to make changes for example instead of
one red cyclop I they have to make two
eyes that can follow each other around
so people know where the fleet is called
forming and where which person they are
looking to and they have also to be an
able to understand human emotions and
also image nonverbal communication cues
so it's like Co domestication of robots
versus humans but because this is a safe
space for all the different people to
share their aspirations and their
imaginations and people are free to just
fork it and move it whichever way and so
form a what we call a social norm and a
social norm is - are they open and
efficient and more egalitarian society
because it's not about people in the
Media Lab dictating what people in
Taipei have in relation to this new
technologies by rather people looking at
those semi done parts and figure out
what they want from the technology and
have the technologists respond to it and
so in governance
parlance this this is what we call a
norm first design where we've just
format the social norms and by having
people exposed to new technologies and
new ideas and from the norms the market
decides they want to build a market
around it and then from the market maybe
we get into code into architecture that
ensures the markets policies and this is
of course a symbiotic relationship
and finally after these to figure things
out finally we make a law about it and
this is much better than the usual
top-down way where people first make a
law about it other than by lawmakers
that has no first-hand experience
whatsoever with technology and then
constrained a limit of technologies that
constrained the markets that constrains
that social norm
so we would argue that this kind of way
is much better if we involve artists and
entrepreneurs as the first batch of
people to experiment with new idea and
dad to is why regular exchange convenes
regularly people from different
disciplines and encourage effective
partnerships and so our first Taipei
meetup was in July I think and with
vitalik and also jennifer and also
somebody from HTC I think selling this
very secure and clave phone thing and so
right we thought do you respect and sir
this is the place where we first
announced our first application of
quadratic voting which you may have
heard about in the previous session in
Taiwan's administration in the
presidential hackathon and around the
same time Santiago Seri and friends are
also I working with the Corrado
budgeting initiative so we we probably
announced around at the same same week
actually say ok maybe by a few days by a
few days right but I mean it's a
different branch right we're in the EMA
straighted branch and they're in the
legislative and so this is marks the
first way that quadratic voting is used
empirically as a voting method and I
think it's great that we set a very good
Norvig sample by having the two projects
all open-source and also we published
anonymize data for people to to analyze
and so I think that's a pretty good
contribution and so before I jump in and
talk about presidential hackathon and
application of quadratic voting I'd like
to just remind people who joined kind of
in the middle that this is an
interactive talk
you're highly encouraged to scan this
car coat on the upper left corner or go
to a slight other comment and here 1 0 1
0 1 so that you can ask me questions and
please remember to like each other's
questions so that I would know that how
many people like me to talk about any
people ideas and so and there's quite a
few follow-up questions I love this so I
just answered them before delving into a
presidential hackathon so one anonymous
person like new how do I know it open by
default is causing behavior change
rather than selection bias well it's a
great question
so the idea very simply put is that I
had people sending me long emails that
argue for their private benefit and
asked for a time for a meeting but I
said you know if you're going to meet me
you have to you know have the entire
transcript published online and so when
they actually do meet me many people
would start prefacing you know I
understand that we are on the record so
today I'm not going to talk about things
that I mentioned during the email I'm
instead talking about a public good
application of my idea and things like
that and so there's so many ideas like
that around and even with David proof
which who was at a time and the public
policy person for uber and of course he
asked for a meeting like one-on-one
meeting but I said you know everything
will be publicly published and so and so
this is a very telling mark that where
he ended the conversation saying I do
think there more details that we can
work out well as the local team to
prepare materials and send them over to
you and I'm like sure just not
everything you send my way will be made
public and so and and so I mean you can
actually look into each and every word
that we said during the conversation
starting from the doorbell and the kind
of arguments that he makes which is
about I don't environmental
sustainability
you know carbon neutrality and
efficiency in right management and
things like that and
I think that the great thing about is is
that we're making arguments not just for
the sake of convincing each other or
about furthering our interest but
because this is entirely public and we
know that people will translate all of
this into meandering and people can
actually quote all of us and not out of
context because by definition each one
of this if you click show context it
would just show the conversation in
context so without any risk of getting
quoted out of context we're much more
likely to further our arguments in a way
that convinced the wider public rather
than just the person across the table so
you can just see this behavior change
once people start dawning on them that
they're not here to convince me but
rather amplify or channel through me
their arguments to reach into what we
call a rough consensus that is to say
people can live with those ideas was the
entirety of the society so I think this
is no selection bias because it's the
same individual it's just in a different
social setting you gradually started
seeing that they realized it's dawning
on them that this is on the record and
the entire behavior pattern just start
adapting and start changing and things
like that so yeah I think it's my first
on experience that people do change in
their strategies when they understand
that they're on this kind of open the
conversation meeting so three people
would like to know is there a date
for the next year radical exchange
conference there is a location I think
that date is still being finalized but
we know that it will be an insult Paulo
and we don't know the exact date or
right so just I don't know subscribe to
Rio exchange on Twitter and the date
will be announced in due time what else
would you consider making your emails
transparent as well so this is obviously
not talking about email addresses right
because my email address is entirely
public I just look at I'm on Twitter so
so my email transactions entirely
transparent it's actually what I did in
the first place when I when it was
announced that I will become the dish
Minister I use a now-defunct platform
called wise like where people who can
ask me any questions but I only answer
in public and if people ask me questions
on private email I just anonymous their
identity but still respond to public and
so this has been a kind of default way
of my conversations so far and because
of this people learnt that they don't
have to just keep asking me the same
questions because it's now very easy to
just go to the forum of my office which
is called Peters public digital
innovation space and just go through the
various questions that people have asked
me before and have it kind of
standardized answers and it's also very
convenient for me because then I don't
have to just come up with fresh answers
every time when people ask me questions
over private email I'll just do a full
text search interior questions is like a
knowledgebase and then I'll just paste
them the URL to the previous person that
asked the same question and they can of
course ask a deeper question but the
factual question they don't have to
repeat twice and this is not just
something that I do by myself
actually the entirety of the Taiwan
cabinet or the 32 ministries I'll learn
this kind of like if you ask me in
private I'm going to answer in public
art and so I think I wouldn't say that
all the incoming emails must be made
open by default mostly because unlike
the visit protocol there's no way for
people to signify that they already
understand the full repercussion that's
the email to this address will be made
public but I think it's always a good
idea if the answers are made public or
at least answers that doesn't quote I
don't know if they ask me a email and
mention as some anecdotal thing about a
third party person and they may not
actually give the the clearance of that
person's data or ideas or information be
made public this way so I usually just
anonymize those names out but I still
give out a full answer in the public
conversation so I think that address at
least parts of this answer so three
people would like to know this my
radical transparency come at a cost
does it take more time or effort to live
your life that way are there tools to
help us do the same so there's a great
question well two questions but anyway
so the first thing is that it actually
saves a lot of time as I mentioned all
the different ministries in Taiwan have
learned this art of just publishing this
is a petition this is regulatory
pre-announcement and this is a budget so
all the 2,000 or so governmental budgets
I haven't done a Google Translate but it
doesn't really matter and people who are
Japanese can't read the kanji anyway but
in in in in any case the idea is that
all the different ministers they have
their KPIs their projects and things
like that
and we can very easily see where the
budget went as well as what kind of
projects people are most interested in
so this long-term care this is
sanitation this is social housing and
things like that so for long term care
people can easily say that this is
something that they care the most about
and this is our quarterly report so
every quarter they reports everything
KPIs
whatever they have achieved and things
like that and just last month actually
we agreed to publish to our our academic
partners everybody can ask for a full
copy of the structured data of all the
procurement associated with all
government project with all those 2000
long-term projects topics and so the
entire details of procurement data is
also open government data and so people
can very freely ask questions here and
normally they will ask questions in a
way that is private that is to say they
just write to the Ministry but if they
answer them one by one nobody knows that
there's already 40 people asking the
same questions but now because they
learned to communicate through this
participation platform people can very
easily ask questions and the Ministry of
Health and Welfare for example will just
say hey for this quarter we detected
that these are their training questions
and we made these changes because if
your input and things like that and if
people keep asking the same questions
just like me they would just paste a URL
to this conversation board so that they
make
each government project a social object
so that people can very easily find it
on a search engine but also start asking
deeper questions instead of wasting
people's time answering the same factual
questions one at a time so basically it
is a lot of work initially but amortized
I think it saves a lot of work because
people would just find out the answers
to their factual questions and start
collaborating and even bringing out
their creative solutions which then
would further save time five people have
a suggestion please turn off the lights
so people can see the text here if
there's no five people saying keep on
the light please let's just turn off the
light thank you so so let's maybe get
back to the to the presidential
hackathon and quadratic voting which is
actually the our premier rxe product and
so the question here is why is the time
when governments in particular so for
leaking is an option of cutting edge
concept of radical markets that's a
really good question there's two answers
the first one is that the Taiwan
presidential election is actually a
relatively recent thing our first
presidential election is in 1996 and so
when the first presidential election
happens there is already where iWeb when
people start doing democracy and design
for a democracy we are informed not only
by representative democracy which we
have zero years of proud legacy of
Republic and tradition because there was
a dictatorship and martial law right
before and so so there's no legacy of
representative democracy and when people
started voting directly for president
there is already this full wealth of the
web the internet Engineering Task for is
the internet way of governance already
serving as an example so instead of like
in many other republics where people
specialized in internet technologies
went to one school and people who
specialized in public administration and
democracy went to another school in
Taiwan this is the same generation we're
really the first generation that can't
do democracy and we
we're doing democracy design we're
exposed also to where I work for the
fenceline and so because of that I think
it informed our imagination and you can
more or less see the same dynamic play
now in Estonia because they got their
constitution after Internet and so they
don't have this proud legacy of you know
paper trails to take care of and so they
can just start inventing democracy using
purely electronic means and so that's my
first answer that explains why people
are much more cutting-edge in Taiwan
because we don't have a legacy system in
our democratic system to maintain and
the second thing I think is also because
in Taiwan we have broadband as human
right if you don't have broadband as a
human right it's very easy for the
opposition party to say that if you roll
out these radical ideas then people are
going to be left out systemically but in
Taiwan we say no matter how far away you
are you may be in the South most Pacific
island of the marine National Park of
doncha maybe the island typing and your
currency to still have 10 megabits per
second if you are on the top most of
Taiwan which is almost 4000 meters high
the jade mountain you shine you're also
guaranteed to have 10 megabits per
second and so our indigenous rural
remote areas broadband coverage is at
98% now and the remaining 2% are mostly
in very high mountains and our Ministry
of Interior actually just said last
month that he is very much willing to
use helicopters to just build the 4G
telecom towers to all the remaining
mountains so our coverage will be at
100% and so this is very devout
dedication to province human right and
it's not just accessibility it's also
very affordable so unlimited 4G
connection anywhere in Taiwan is only 16
US dollars per month which is very
affordable so you get people anyone
really just primary schoolers becoming
youtubers because there's no additional
cost of being a youtuber everybody can
participate in this live streaming
technology and live streaming culture
and so because of we have provenance
Amuro it was a very affordable price as
well as the dished opportunity centers
for people who cannot
a new tablet they can lend one from the
public library that's guaranteed to be
manufacturing the previous three years
or so so relatively new and we offer
that for indigenous nations as well as
well as schools so because of that there
is really no opposition party that can
say you know once you roll out this
participation platform it's going to
leave people behind because everybody is
on the Internet and so our participation
platform which has just show you the
public budgeting and also app additional
website currently has 10 million active
users and considering how much
population is 23 million that's already
almost half of our population that can
use the Internet and so I think that's
the second answer is that we not only
start imagining democracy when the world
web is already in place but also because
we have dedicated budget on education
and properness Human Rights so that we
can just roll these cutting-edge
technologies without any political
pushback so I think that's the two
question so presidential hackathon is
one of our innovations that incorporates
quadratic voting in the administrative
branch so uhm hackathon everybody here
knows what a closed so we don't have to
explain that but normally our hackathons
in the open-source community are maybe
two days or three days but the
presidential hackathon being is
presidential it's three months and so is
a very very long marathon and so it's
kind of a stretch on their word
hackathon but the idea very simply put
it's it's inspired by very similar ideas
like the German prototype font there's
ideas like that over the place and we
just improve on it using quadratic
voting in a different prize structure so
anyone around the time of April can
start proposing ideas that use data and
technologies and innovation to make
public sector work better and so one
example from one of the five winning
teams last year is the water saviors
because they save water you see so this
is a person from the Taiwan Water
Corporation and they just using those
listening devices to listen to the pipes
that may or may not be leaking and so in
a pilot area that they chose for
presidential hackathon it used to take
two months when the pipe starts leaking
the plastic pipes and at the time that
it gets discovered that is actually
leaking and
design this repairs people just listen
to the pipes that are not leaking and so
it's not a very rewarding job and they
have trouble you know recruiting young
people obviously and so they went to the
presidential hackathon saying maybe it's
a better idea if I can develop a chatbot
and the chat pod would look at the water
pressure data water flow data
environmental data weather data whatever
and then detect spikes in different
water usage patterns and very easily let
those repairs people see when they wake
up that what are the three most likely
leaking points near them so that they
can devote their time solving the
leaking points which requires creativity
instead of listening to places that's
not leaking which doesn't require
creativity and so we automate those away
using AI or as we like to call it
assistive intelligence but the public
sector people doesn't have the expertise
in making such technologies and so
through the presidential hackathon we
basically coach them and pair them with
the private secretary technological
experts who just donate a few weekends
to contribute so it may or may not worth
paper doesn't work there's no harm done
and we also covered them with people in
the social sector we people who
understand how to communicate and how to
design chat parts how to engage with the
open source community
the organizers that service kind of
liaisons to people who have already
solved some of that questions before not
necessarily in this domain but they are
access connectors and so we also ask all
the different entries to identify their
work using the Sustainable Development
Goals the SDGs and it's a very useful
indexing device we don't have to explain
a lot about the system we're working on
we just say it solves SDG targets 6.4
and there's 169 targets and so in the
form of targets something does something
and once we say that everybody across
the world knows that we have a
contribution to increase was reduced
efficiency and ensure fresh water
supplies and so they cut a trophy and
the people from New Zealand for example
then invite them for another three
months of co-creation all of this sounds
pretty standard so what's special about
the presidential hackathon well it's the
trophy
so the trophy looks something like this
but with a stunt that is a projector
okay so the idea simply put is that our
president this is our president by the
way dr. Simon would see the final
computation at her office the
presidential office and give out five
awards to five teams that's the theme of
the year and so the five teams received
no prize money whatsoever and but they
received this trophy from the president
which is a projector as I mentioned and
if you turn it on it projects the image
of the president handing the trophy to a
team so it's very meta and and you can
choose which part of the video you want
to play in someone's very cutting-edge
but for people in the private in private
sector this this may be just something
that that looks good on their portfolio
resume but for people on the public
sector this is a godsend because for
people who pilot on a small area like
the Geelong area that I explained most
of time they talk to their Director
General and their teacher would say
there's no budget to scale it out to the
entire Taiwan but then they just turn on
the projector and their director notes
the elders budget this budget for will
make it into our annual budget and so if
their minister says this requires cross
ministry or coordination because the
Ministry of Economy can't just take care
of it alone we have to talk about the
Environmental Protection Agency we'll
talk about a Ministry of Interior is too
much of hassle let's just go down this
project you just turn on the projector
and summon the president and the
minister was they'll tomorrow which is
scheduled to talk with the prepped it
was another Minister and so that this
works because this is essentially a
token of presidential promise whatever
they have prototype in the previous
three months is current seat to be
included into a national policy by
within the next twelve months and so the
president's office my office
everybody's office do whatever we could
for many of their teams we made new
agencies we made new personnel we
changed regulations around telemedicine
for example and we allocate new national
budget for it so whatever
the Taiwan government is committed to
make your idea a reality within the next
12 months so you can work on something
new instead of trying to find out you
know whether you how to scale it out or
whether to secure it so basically
scaling to the scale of Taiwan is the
reward of the presidential hand coat on
and so that is a very attractive reward
structure and so last year all the five
teams got their ideas implemented as if
this year so we're going a lot of street
credibility and so this this year's a
record number of teams participating and
that creates a problem because it's very
difficult actually once you have a hope
palette of projects solving all those
different sustainable development goals
it's actually very difficult to stretch
which ones to make into top-20 and
receive this tri sectoral support
because each one is solving obviously
one important thing in the 17
sustainable goals but how do you weigh
environmental projects versus social
projects versus economical projects and
the projects are very in between and the
answer is that we can't the jury by
definition cannot be an expert of all
the 116 I think there's nobody on the
planet that memorized all the entire
SDGs and is an expert on each and every
one of it so we have to crowdsource and
Chryslers is usually on the platform of
a voting system online and we of course
has this platform already ran the joint
platform which as I mentioned I have 10
million active users out of 23 million
so it has a start but how do we make
sure that when there's hundreds of teams
the voting actually reflects what people
feels about the teams and teams ideas
that people can resonate with because in
if we don't design this right people are
just going to be mobilized by their
friend who are in the team and go to the
website and vote all their votes onto a
single team without even glancing the
other 100 or so projects and that's what
usually happens if you run a voting
system like that and so that's when
quadratic voting entered a picture and
basically helped create a much more
nuanced and balanced
20 team selection is lqv very simply put
as implemented in the presidential
hackathon is that everybody who login to
the participation platform gets 99
points and we chose 99 instead of 100
because we don't want people to go vote
on a single project because as you can
see if you really like I don't know if
you really like reduced marine pollution
and you vote for this team you vote for
one vote and that's going to cost you
one point if you vote for two votes
actually it's going to cost you four
points because it's quadratic and if you
want to vote nine votes then that's 81
right so by the time that you click in
the interface to verge the ninth vote
the system will tell you that you cannot
vote two tents vote because that will
require 100 points but you only have 99
and so used to have what 18 left and
because you have 18 left and you don't
want to squander this vote and that's
the core inside of rxe is that people
don't want to squander the votes the
points that they have people
instinctively feel that they must find
something else to to vote on and so
maybe you look around and say oh you
want to train a machine learning model
to detect illicit fraud panama papers'
style that sounds like an interesting
project and then you discover that with
your 18 points you can only vote for
votes because there's 16 points and you
still have 2 points left and because
people don't want to square it is 2
points they will look around and find
other project which buys by the time
they vote on the forced project they
will probably find something that is
actually much more within their domain
knowledge that gate then can judge that
it's actually going to create a much
more impact and maybe marine pollution
is still important but maybe it's not as
important as you know requiring 81
points so maybe they will just take a
couple votes away so that they can vote
on both of them using 7 votes which is
10 49 points each and that's still well
within the
quadratic voting budget and so this
whole process of going through the
different options voting this more
taking away some votes and taking some
more all these activities we've
published on github in anonymous fashion
so that if people want to analyze how Q
V impacts people's interactions with
those projects feel free to just analyze
this but we are very happy about this as
jury because this then helped us to
discover the various different projects
that we don't have domain knowledge on
but people nevertheless feel strongly
about and a lot of people feel
relatively strongly about and then we go
and learn about it and then we discover
is really actually a pretty good idea
and so this really covers a much broader
crowd than our jury of maybe a dozen
people can and then it informs our next
round of selection as well because then
people who have participated are much
more willing to contribute their
expertise into trying to make this idea
a reality because people feel generally
that they've won because it's much more
likely compared to the previous
arrangement where you just vote
everything on one project and just leave
the website it's much more likely that
some of your votes it's projects did
make it to the top 20 or top 10 or top 5
so people feel much more identified and
when we have a call to collaborators
people who have voted even just one
votes or two votes to a certain projects
much more willing to join this
collaborative partnership and so that's
the basic idea of the quadratic voting
as applied to presidential hackathon so
I know this question will come right so
yes right so - well to get it over with
[Laughter]
so five people would like to know how do
I feel about the minister in charge of
IT in Japan so I don't know the minister
personally unfortunately that I've read
many newspaper and Twitter comparisons
that mostly around H I think this is not
really fair because first of all that's
in Taiwan the minister in charge of
Science and Technology there's two
ministers Minister
of Science and Technology as well as the
horizontal minister in charge of the
board of science and technology and
they're both my father's age or older
than my father but we still maintain
very good across generational solidarity
working in the cabinet and so I'm the
digital minister but I'm not really the
ICT ministry my work is mostly about
digital transformation meaning that
enabling new kind of institutional
design power by technologies but I don't
work on for example the IT protocol
myself that is the purview of the
Science and Technology ministry and so
basically I work on the application
layer so to speak and and not really the
IT layer which requires a different kind
of thinking I guess so
and this is just a general observation I
think in a cabinet we need people of
both parts across different generations
people who are more versed in a top-down
vertical notion of doing things and
people like me who are much more versed
in a horizontal leadership if we don't
have both roles in a cabinet is very
easy to for the mechanism to start
vocalizing even horizontal designs can't
fossilize really quickly but if you do
the design in a way that is
cross-cutting that has most of the
horizontal designs in place but also
very good vertical command control
structures it actually becomes a much
more fluid design overall so I don't
know how exactly the IT is being talked
about in in Japan but I tried to work
with the code for Japan I don't know
whether anyone here is from code for
Japan which is a community here that
runs workshops with the local public
service as well as people in the Cabinet
Office about important aspects like how
to enable teleworking
while enabling their people to trust as
every security involved in here working
as well as how to popularize the Japan
system of electronic signature while
making sure that people who love the
seals can still get some culture oh I
don't know satisfaction by the use of
maybe bluetooth co like devices or
things like that
and so just to find common values
despite the different generations
positions I think that it's very
important and so I don't know the
administrator personally but I think
it's rather unfortunate
that there is kind of one individual
versus one individual comparison because
my work wouldn't be as effective if not
for the ministers of my father's age
that can actually deliver the
implementation of those ideas in a very
efficient as well as top-down manner so
next question Hong Kong so eleven people
would like to know in Hong Kong people
are hiding personal information in order
to avoid police censorship does the
radical transparency only work in
certain conditions this is a great
question
so I actually the radical transparency
applies to the content that was said but
there are arrangements where people
really would like to choose a pseudonym
and generally in my conversations as
well as in the petition we do allow for
pseudonyms of course there's risk of
civil attack and everything so we really
do have to make sure you're a real
person when you're making a petition for
example it's verify using SMS and so on
but on the other hand when presenting to
the community you can choose a pseudonym
so as to protect yourself now you would
say the SMS is usually verified with ID
that's true but you can also use a
prepaid SIM card that is purchased on
the grocery store so it would take
actually a lot of effort to track it
back you can have your friends buy it
for example and so there is some leeway
in not really going for real name
but we also want to increase the cost of
getting new identity on the petition
platform otherwise people just register
5,000 emails and get every petition on
the weight and that of course wouldn't
work as well so which shows the SIM card
with pseudonym as kind of just
compromised about it so yes I think the
question is of course factually correct
the real code transparency you works
when everybody involves is comfortable
with it and in different social
configurations people's comfort level
may be different but that's why slide o
is great because on slide oh people can
choose pseudonyms can choose to be
anonymous but people who can also at any
given time change to their real name or
just raise your hand and identify and
claim that question is something that
you have
and so this kind of gradual knob of
anonymity pseudonymity and real name
identity is what we have always tried to
design into our process so that people
are not afraid of whistleblowing or
starting a petition in a very unpopular
position but at some time when the
presidential hackathon for example many
public servants roll into the
presidential hackathon knowing that
their director general is not approving
of their idea but because we design is
such that they can work with their
social sector friends just a random
hacker from the open source community
proposing that idea even when reading
the project description we know it's
somebody from the public service
probably a section chief that have
written the text by the proposer
is somebody a random hacker from the
open source community and section chief
would say oh there's addresses things
pertaining to my purview so I would just
collaborate with this outside hacker
even though they wrote it themselves but
in any case if it doesn't work over the
course of three months Daniel doesn't
work they stayed completely under the
radar their Directorate General doesn't
even know that this idea is attached to
section Chiefs but when one of their
ideas actually become a winner of the
presidential hackathon for example this
particular one it's not until that they
want the presidential trophy - the
actual proposer came out and say hey I
proposed this idea of using machine
learning to parse through the
persecution of all the documents public
prosecution documents of companies that
engage in illicit financial flows and
trading with shell companies as well as
all the public information disclosed by
publicly listed companies and they
really change a machine learning model
that him predict was pretty good
accuracy which company in the next
quarter is going to be accused of
violating the anti money laundering or
the illicit financial flows it's
actually a really good idea but he's
actually a entry level public servant in
the tax Bureau
and so his directors are really not into
that idea but but but because he can now
project the you know president's image
wherever I can summon the president so
he just came forward
say hey I work in the tax Bureau I'm
actually a public servant but had they
not want presidential hackathon they can
just become you know totally anonymous
and under the radar and so having this
kind of design where people can be
absolved of the risk of innovating but
still take the credit when the
innovation works I think that's also
very important when we're designing a
mechanism that rewards people for
proposing their ideas that are genuinely
they believe good for the public and
have a sandbox to try for three months
that it's generally good for the public
so theoretically of course this question
is right very very much right on spot
but we can always do multi step designs
that that people are required to reveal
more and more of themselves but only
when the risk is also lower and lower
guaranteed and that's there the credit
associated with it is also more and more
so a people would like to know what's
the main goal of radical exchange
so rather than exchange as I explained
is Domingo is here developing
institutional reform ideas voting public
goods financing data markets to
officials in various places and so to
further the possibility of cooperating
across difference so so that is the
state let's go all those institutional
design mechanism whatever is just to
look take a hard look at our inherited
institutions and traditions and figuring
out the silos or the bad designs the
inefficient design that punish people
for cooperating that punish people for
proposing good social innovation idea
that punish people from revealing their
true preferences and then turn it around
and start rewarding people for doing
those pro-social things so that's the
idea of radical exchange and it doesn't
have to be quadratic voting it doesn't
have to be quadratic financing or any of
those ideas that Glenn has outlined in
the book it could be totally outside the
book as long as this is really about
promoting corporate across difference I
think is well within the spirit of
radical exchange so quadratic voting as
we can see is actually very intuitive
our little experiments with presidential
hackathon
showed that people generally get the
idea and we are now also kind of what's
the word here drinking our own champagne
in the in the radical exchange
foundation and so this is a a real
voting ballot and this is built with the
great technology called Esther
spreadsheet which is very portable
we don't need specialized software we
were just you know write some
spreadsheet and so you can also very
easily replicate it and so this is our
actual blind ballot so each of us all
the board members in rather exchange
meet through the great internet every
quarter and every quarter each person
can propose resolutions for other people
to vote on and then we have a of course
the liberty of structure where we talk
about the pros and cons and have long
email you know flame wars not really
flying was very long email threats
talking about each proposals merits and
things like that but then at the end of
it we have to make a resolution so at a
beginning forming of the board we first
are making a made higher resolution
saying that whatever we decide through
quadratic voting will will affirm by
unanimous vote because the New York City
bylaws doesn't quite recognize the
quadratic building so we have to first
finance ourselves to whatever that's
result of Kaushik voting we have to make
it also then another unanimous vote to
make it true and then the resolution
very simply put is a one-line
description of what's to be resolved and
then we can approve or disapprove it so
each of the board member can vote yay or
nay
and so like 25 means that I feel
moderately strong I guess about adopting
quadratic voting but I can also vote nay
which then which of course I wouldn't
want to cancel my own vote so I have it
about zero here and then build something
there to show that I disapprove of this
and so all the resolutions that have
more yay votes than navels become then
the board's resolution so again I mean
this is very intuitive I don't have to
share the source code of the
spreche it you can probably go that this
spreadsheet in an hour or maybe one
minutes actually is structurally very
simple and then the good thing is that
it also let us only express opinions and
things that we feel strongly or know
something about so if for this quarter
all the resolutions is something that I
don't care or that I don't understand I
don't really have to vote so that's the
idea of a carryover voice credit so each
quarter each board member receive 100
fresh voting credit but all the unused
voting credits will be carried over into
the next quarter with the depreciation
of one quarter and so that means that
maybe the first quarter I have 100 if I
don't use it then it depreciates by one
quarter so the next quarter I'll have
175 and and so on and so forth but once
voice credit never exceeds 400 for
obvious reasons and so people are still
motivated to vote once in a while at
least once in a year
otherwise your voice credits would
depreciate to the point that it's not
really useful to keep them anymore and
so there is again this idea of using
market mechanism to reward each board
member to review their true preferences
even though in the deliberative face
where people generally feel okay about
this it still is very useful for the
person that proposed this resolution to
God at exactly what how strongly people
feel about a particular project even if
everybody feels it's okay about it maybe
nobody want to spend any voice credit on
it or just one or just for proposed
credit side and then people can very
easily Gorge the general feeling as well
as form much more effective partnerships
around things that we feel actually much
more strongly about and so this is a
really low threshold social technology
you can start adopting it for your next
board meeting it's actually very easy to
implement so that's the part about
quadratic voting and I hope that answers
some of this question so one follow-up
question how do you resolve if bills are
tied for two ideas well for four board
meeting that's that's not a problem
because if the votes are yay as long as
it's positive we're just
going to resolve and just pass them
through and but if in the presidential
hackathon people have this exactly the
same votes for the top 20 then maybe we
just make the top 20 the top 10 who won
but with a very large participating user
base it's actually very difficult
because for quadratic ax voting
everybody can vote anywhere from one to
nine votes for each project so we
actually it's much harder to get ties
compared to regular approval voting or
regular one vote per person or in votes
per person so so far we've not run into
a place where we really need to do
tiebreaking so but we're probably just
include both of them so five people
would like to know can I explain how
does Taiwan citizens identify themselves
on these eServices is a country wide
into a framework yes so we do have a
card much like Estonia and like Estonia
it's up in so people don't have to use
it I think maybe whining is three people
use it mostly for a text falling but
very soon also for online referendum
signature collection and things like
that and starting next year we're going
to reprint our paper ID card and we will
include a say option for you to enable
the PKR card as part of that ID card but
you don't have to again it's up end but
we look forward to raise from maybe one
in three people to maybe one in two
people opting in for the national pique
a card but again it's it's not mandatory
I think Japan is has a kind of my number
or something like that that's also maybe
waiting for people one in five people
so we're roughly in the same boat we're
not in kind of Estonia we're maybe nine
out of ten people are making active use
of the PKR card but we're gradually
getting there and it's roughly speaking
the same identity framework it's
government-issued it's public key
cryptography it's pretty good you know
privacy and not that particular privacy
electronic signature and people are also
entitled to download their data we call
it my data so that if you have data
entrusted to a public demonstration or
public agency like your health care data
and so on you can get a copy of that you
can also
authorized some third-party application
to process that as well as understand
what that third-party application is
doing accessing your personal data in
someone so we have a pretty good design
to make sure that across different
ministries they cannot really look at
the raw data so if you trust your
privacy data to a Minister of Health and
Welfare the Minister of Interior cannot
really look at the raw data without a
law authorizing that but they can look
at statistics and there's also ways to
work on statistic collaborations between
different agencies as well as between
different sectors so that's pretty much
our identity framework so five people
has an interesting question what avoids
that you actually don't save the
information of a meeting or a meet in a
random place like a house so I think
that question is about what if I choose
to mate in a non office space and do
some binding decisions over that but
without disclosing it well first of all
the protocol which is in visit that P
dist Atty doubly actually takes care of
that it says from the section 3-1 it
could be meeting in the executive UN or
it could be meeting in my office space
so if you look at an office space it's
actually linking into OpenStreetMap
which is good I guess but then it also
says that if I conduct this in my
official residence or indeed any na
office space then we should make an
audio-visual recording and and so
basically the recording strength is
different depending on a different
physical location if this is one of the
office spaces where I'm always
accompanied as people still have a kind
of copy of what's being talked about
then
just people which then trust that if I'm
you know not recording things verbatim
I still have a accompanying colleague
and my office is actually one delegate
from each ministry so those delegates
don't really work for me they still work
for their ministry and so they will make
sure that's what is being talked about
is kosher and
if there is entreating or lobbying
behavior they will just feel this form
and for a long and so basically there is
very little chance of a off-record
meeting if it's in my office space but
if it's in privacy or oriented spaces
like my official residence then the
protocol extends to say that it has to
record entire audio-visual so for
example David Plouffe actually that
visit was in my official residence so if
you go to youtube you can actually three
not only a recording but actually a 360
recording from the first time that
doorbell rang to the time that he walks
out you can just put on VR glasses and
feel how it's like to have a
conversation about where and that is
basically the way to prove to the people
in general that first I would choose the
official meeting space wherever possible
but also if it is not the official
meeting space then there's made into
official space ich by making sure that
the entrance as well the exit of the
visitor is both recorded and because my
schedule is also public to all the
different delegates to my office and
everybody can actually see what my
office is working on it's using a very
standard technology called weekend which
is a fork or really a copy of Kanban so
everybody can also track everything that
we're working on so it's actually very
difficult to have a clandestine meeting
within the packed schedules and so
people don't even try so that is a basic
response to to this question so before I
answer the rest of the questions I do
want to get through at least some of the
other ideas of relative exchange as
proposed by the communities one logical
extension to quadratic voting is called
quadratic finance and this you see this
kind of diagram all the time so it's
maybe a good thing to explain it
basically as I explained you can vote
for one vote and it will cost you one
point and four points will be two votes
so basically the point roughly
corresponds to the area of these blocks
and strengths
that is to say its actual effect roughly
correspond to the height of those blocks
so if you see a lot of block diagram
when we talk about a quadratic whatever
papers that's what is being meant it's
not exactly intuitive I try to convince
the presidential hackathon team to do
the voting in the form of a glass like
this where people can pour I don't know
liquid into it and then the kind of
liquid you pour into will be also
quadratic to the effect of their
strengths of your votes but they think
this is not actually more intuitive than
blocks and so they just did away with
that so um anyways but but whatever
metaphor you use this is the effect of
quadratic voting and so quadratic
finance says say that the government
have matching funds as we actually do to
a lot of public funding projects and
most of the time we want to fund
projects that serves a wider public
interest but we also want to incentivize
people to bring more of their funding
into it so we want two things first that
we want match matchable funding from the
crowdfunding scene but second we want to
crowd apart in the crowdfunding as well
and so quadratic finance is a very
simple way to say if you only have one
person in the community caring about
this project then they will just self
fund the project because obviously
nobody else think it's a good idea but
people can signify signal that is a good
idea just by putting very small amount
of votes into it so for example this red
project here there's five people caring
about it and the area is not really
larger than the purple one but it shows
that more people are benefiting from
this project so the government or the
co-op or whatever organization want you
to implement project finance will take
it as a signal that more people want it
to happen and so much according to the
height of this basically making it a
full block a quadratic and again this
one will get not as much matching
funding badly
benefits to parties and so they will
take care of almost half of the funding
while the cooperative or the government
takes care of the other half of the
funding so this is just a intuition you
can change the parameters however you
want but the basic idea is that we want
a social signal from people who maybe
don't have that much extra money lying
around crowdfunding but they can use
just you know one dollar to signify that
they really want to see this happen and
once they get a sizable following the
government or the coop in question can
use that signal to know that they really
want to offer the matching fund to make
that happen first but if nobody else
cares about any particular project then
that project doesn't really warrant
using the public money in the car pretty
for the government so that's just a very
logical extension of the quadratic
voting idea using that as a signal of
the social benefit so right so feel free
just to walk in and now I understand
there's many other sessions going on and
so the second half of this talk I would
just go back to the questions and I mean
if you any of you want to start raising
your hands that's excellent as well
well there's 20 questions so we better
get to it
four people would like to know how would
I measure the success of my policies
that's a great question
so in Taiwan we have this idea of a
dashboard so each of our sustainable
divorce
have a different implementation in that
dashboard so I'll just use one example
s35 gender equality just to use that as
a example of how we usually do impact
measurement so of course we know that
Taiwan is the first country in Asia that
legalized marriage equality yay and
Taiwan did this in a way that is thank
you
but this is this is quite qualitative
right but but there's also of course
quantified benefits of enabling marriage
equality but we're also looking at this
from a very practical standpoint because
there was a constitutional ruling that
says marriage equality must be
implemented regardless of sexual
orientation but then there's also two
referenda to national referendums one
say that the Civic code regarding
heterosexual marriage must keep as this
without redefining what it means in the
civil code but another referendum also
says that we must protect marriage
equality but without you know calling it
marriage in the Civil Code and so the
Korea public service is faced with a
very well-defined
that is a very difficult solution space
that have to conform to the
constitutional ruling and the two
referenda and without offending anyone
and then but very kind of miraculously
with just a few short months they
delivered a what we call the hyperlink
act which is a new act that that defines
same-sex marriage but all its content is
just hyperlinks back to the Civil Code
and that says same-sex marriage as
defined as such and enjoy exactly the
same horizon pound benefits of the
marriage in civil code but what it does
really well is that it hyperlinks all
the bylaws meaning that all the rights
and obligations are hyperlinked through
but it doesn't hyperlink to the section
that talked about the in-laws because in
East Asia culture at least in Taiwan we
have sixteen different words for 4-ounce
and uncle meaning that people really
care about the kinship relationship and
indeed before 2007 there at the marriage
is a entirely social one you don't have
to register for your marriage if you
have a public ceremony involving both
families is signified a marriage not
only of the two people but actually
there are two families then your wet you
can register after fact you if you don't
register it doesn't matter the marriage
does thoughts but after 2008 we switched
to a registration based marriage
and a marriage is just about you know
two people was to witness registering at
a desk and whether they have a ceremony
or not it's really not the government's
business and so because we changed the
definition of marriage kind of Midway
different people from different
generation have very different ideas
about marriage and so when we legalize
the bylaws we took special care in
saying that but it's not touching the
in-laws so when to same-sex people what
there is there's nothing about their
family relationships and that really is
the key to convince the people of the
older generation the social marriage
ceremony people to see this as something
distinct from the marriage as they knew
it which is not a part of the law
anymore but they still have fond
memories about it
but that that isn't being encroached by
the same-sex marriage but the same sex
marriage of course enjoy exactly the
same rights and obligations so why can
the public service figure out this so
quickly that's because they have data so
first of all the the MPs liked it and
partly because our MPs are very gender
balanced this is a slide that I used in
Canada so I just compared with
jurisdictions near Canada in Taiwan if
I'm going to talk in Scandinavia I'm not
going to show this light because they
have far more women in their Parliament
but we're doing pretty well in terms of
North American and East Asian standards
and so there's a lot more balance in the
parliament but aside from the Parliament
really the administrative branch is
where the measurement of progress is
really really done and this is been has
been going on for 12 yes all the
projects and bills are reviewed by this
gender equality committee which is by
design a multi-stakeholder committee
with 17 ministers and 17 plus one civil
society leaders and so if they really go
to a vote the social sector will win and
the public sector will lose so that
incentivized the ministers really
actively participate in the gender
equality council and then with that
council all the projects which is about
two hundreds every year and all the
bills that we proposed to the
legislation which is about
you must include a very detailed
assessment of the impact that they're
trying to do gender equality on one
particular sustainable goal and
everything they collect gets into the
gender dashboard which keeps refreshing
even when the project is over so this is
one particular example this is talking
about Employment Service Act or the ESA
from the Ministry of Labor and they have
to start ticking a lot of boxes and
analyzing the current status and
problems and what gender related kind of
top-level goals so it's to help women to
who leave their workplace to find
employment and then what's their
solution to the problem and during the
solution have they considered a
necessity what are the supporting
measures what are the concrete policy
goals and this is where you get from the
qualitative to the quantitative and who
are the groups affected by the
legislation have you done any external
consultation with those external groups
what are those kprs suggested by the
external groups affected by the
legislation which relative authorities
have you consulted what are the pre
previously agreed benefits of those
policies as agreed by those external
consultations are there any
constitutional considerations and what
about international covenants and so on
and so forth and this is actually just
one third and I'm just to spare you the
rest but the idea is that each and every
analysis each and every quantitative
term in this analysis is then turned
into a data set so if this policy calls
for measuring general balance in the
numbers of volunteers in the health
department or the labor force
participation rate proportion of female
executive in the administration
proportion of people working as
principals to schools or high schools
and so on if they mention any term then
we start measuring it and once we start
measuring it it never ends and so this
is ever increasing gender dashboard and
that's then informed that the area of
change people can actually very easily
see which policy have
which missed its target which collateral
damage or collateral benefit it it to
the January quality and much more
importantly it forces people not only in
the Ministry of Labour which obviously
have something to do with gender but
also ministries the Finance Ministry of
Economic Development to start
considering about gender impact even if
their job doesn't usually cover it and
if they forget to consult the external
groups or whatever then the majority
civil society leader who all have to
review each and every of those
assessments will currently remind them
of it and without their approval
actually the project never clears the
cabinet meeting and so because of that
they really have to go back and then the
consult people and so that's basically
is the idea we have very similar
arrangement for other sustainable living
goals but the idea is that we just keep
measuring the things that are identified
by stakeholders as important in the
consultation meetings and once we run
the project even after it's finished we
never stop measuring it and so this is
just a standardized way to measure for
gender equality but we're also going to
introduce a very similar one for the
open government as well as part of our
national action plan on open government
for an SD 216 and so that's the basic
idea so the measurement is yes finally
somebody raised your hand last week I
was just in point a Syrus I'm still
adjusting from a gel-like so I think
from my understanding Argentina has also
really started looking into
international measurement theories of
change in the past three years of course
it's hard to you know finish everything
in three years but I think it's
generally moving to the right direction
with the international standard
components so that we can enable
independent assessment through the
different policy areas and I think the
most important thing in Taiwan when
we're adopting this kind of very
progressive measurement is that we
always keep the social sector of a
higher legitimacy than the public sector
and this is really the kind of secret
sauce of Taiwan's democracy because
Taiwan used to be under martial law
but it gots lifted in 1987 but our
presidential election is 96 so there's
10 years between people have the right
to assemble and free speech and the
presidential election and so the civil
society has ten years of head start to
build legitimacy and the administration
had no legitimacy added and what's
inherited from the martial law era so
when we started really democratizing
there's already very strong civil
society organizations that are perfectly
fine raised in tier funds even rolling
out their products and services even
people donating so regularly to it that
they get a very much like tax like
income and so on so with those social
organizations making sure that the
government is measuring according to
what I want they often just set up a
like the gender equality council a
governance mechanism that involved the
government but it's not dominated by the
government the government has strictly
speaking a minority seat in it so they
will invite the government in in to
participate and get the legitimacy that
is so Social Credit Day not that social
credit the credit from the society that
they have accumulated but then the
government never gets to control it so I
think that really is the key and I will
use another example which is the the
airbox which is also have something to
do with distributed ledgers so I think
it's good to share it here but this is
one of the the more popular citizen
science projects in town when people
care about air quality like PM 2.5
pollution and things like that and so
people just bought those very cheap like
less than 100 you install this devices
and put them in their balcony their
primary school or whatever their office
space is start just reporting to a
distribute ledger what their measure
equality is and in the ledger is great
because otherwise people would question
the numbers and maybe you know people
which before the day before the election
accuse each other of going back and
changed numbers but letters make sure
that this doesn't happen and so all
those two thousand or so stations are
entirely operated by people by citizens
and they don't have any government
funding and what
this started the Environmental
Protection Agency has maybe 77 stations
and so you're of course going to trust
the station that nearby you maybe not as
precise as the national one but in any
case it's much closer to your home right
because of that when I shared this slide
with many nearby jurisdictions in Asia
they were bewildered and said that in
their jurisdiction if there's some
uprising like this they will try to buy
off the leader of their technology and
recruit them into the government and if
they refuse by the two hundred station
they will try to discredit or maybe
disappear them and this is this is this
is true I mean this really threatens the
government legitimacy but because the
government is so used to the social
secretary having more legitimacy when
things like air box come around which is
like yeah we can't beat them we must
join them so we just start talking with
them saying what do you need what you
want and the the citizen scientist said
oh we want air boxes here which is the
industrial park there are private
property with suspected them of air
pollution they say they're not even
polluting anything and with there's a
kind of squabble going on so we're like
yeah we can help it turns out that we
owned the lamps within the industrial
park so we can just hang their air boxes
using their poetic writing to thier late
ledger but on the lamps on the interest
rate park or people say I want to
measure the air quality here because I
want to tell domestic verses over the
straight air quality but they can't
really measure their I mean people did
try to fly a drone there but you know
battery technology being what it is it
really can't stay at air very long so
it's very costly for a citizen scientist
to measure air quality there but people
are interested in in that spot and we're
like yeah we're building a lot of wind
turbines renewable energy plants there
so we can just amend the contract and
say anyone who want to construct a wind
turbine must also do some air quality
measurement and write to the citizens
ledger on the citizens air box network
and so basically the public sector
always plays a supportive role
and that's has two benefits first that
people learned that if they don't like
what the government is doing they don't
argue for a larger government which as I
understand is some part of the coach of
the Argentine culture is that if people
feel that government isn't doing
something they just advocated a
government doing more of it and and
enlargen the government but when people
feel that they have more legitimacy in
the government than their natural
tendency is just to do it themselves
and and so the government doesn't have
to keep growing in numbers they don't
have to keep taxing people more so
that's the first benefit and the second
one is that because using distribute
Ledger's and open innovation we actually
can engage with people around the world
that just downloads the airbox code from
github that just starts a Raspberry Pi
or Arduino or whatever open hardware and
people who want to apply to other
domains like water box some kind of
water quality measurement can freely do
so and so open innovation also makes
sure that the government doesn't have to
take on a maintenance role so the
innovation is done by social sector and
maintenance is collectively shared by
businesses private sector social
engineers that see a business model of
it and so the public sector does the
minimal which is you know hanging air
boxes on lamps in industrial parks so I
think that really is the answer to your
question is just to have a good
cross-sectional relationship yes yeah
that that's the topic of this talk as
karateka exchange anything that can
incentivize this kind of voluntary
collaboration without a centralized
government like top-down design so it's
it's still policy design but it's
planning in more humble way it's just a
saying you know people have different
positions is there a way to make them
much more willing to share their common
values instead of just fighting out
different positions and if we keep
asking this question then people are
actually much more willing to entertain
the idea that maybe there are common
values after all despite different
positions and so I think gradual
exchange is a really good umbrella when
I was in Buenos Aires there's actually a
chapter in Venice iris and also in in
Chile and so people when I walk into so
I gave a public talk in this
politic political and judiciary
department but that department in the
university is sharing its office space
with the Department of Finance market
design mechanism design so just random
people studying economics are also in my
talk and and there's a very fruitful
umbrella because reco exchange means
that people can apply their market
design mechanism ideas in public space
through social innovation so everybody
feel that they can have something to
contribute even if they're not yet a
minister they can still contribute it
from the level of their university or
their community co-op or their apartment
management for the community complex or
things like that and so it can start at
a very small level but lessons learned
can very easily be scale up and scale
out as well so I think rxc is a pretty
good umbrella chime for people who want
to experiment with that idea without
having a okay from the public sector the
public ii had joined after the fact so
that's essentially the kind of line of
persuasion that we're now talking to
various different countries is basically
saying you know colorado taiwan or
whatever did something and it looks very
shiny and then we understand this
requires political will that you
probably don't have but if you just use
this fresh eat in your next meeting then
your meeting gets better and and so
basically a a high-enough like pilot but
with a low enough threshold of joining
and that's the basic idea of how i rxe
try to get into different jurisdictions
oh buying votes right yeah so so that's
that's a really good question
so for presidential hackathon we
actually like people to buy votes
because we want more people to learn
about this ideas and really it's only
about setting the relative priority
anyway and so people are going to
mobilize voters with with social buying
or you know just mobilizing their users
to vote for them the thing is that once
you get into the voting a parent
there really is no easy way to attest
that you have voted exactly like that
because unlike electronic voting the
central tally is only done in our
application so even if you screenshot
your process of voting you can easily
also fake that screen casting and still
vote for something else so there's no
easy way to for people to systemically
buy votes that's the first thing and the
second thing is that even with social I
wouldn't say buying but encouraging
people to vote for you what we have seen
from the log is that when they vote as
instructed nine votes everything to one
project they still have 18 points left
and they still look at other projects
and many people just take away from the
initial votes once they find something
that they know more about and so we see
this over and over again with the design
that we introduced before we used
quadratic voting we also used a AI based
conversation method called polis and the
polis which is having this structure
basically ask people to come to a
website and look at one sentiment from
one fellow citizen and they can vote
agree or disagree and as they do so they
are avatar move among the people that
share similar sentiments as they do but
there's no reply button because if you
have a reply button the tros win the day
they have more time on their hands but
if you don't have the reply button
people after voting a few years or knows
they will start just sharing their ideas
for other people to vote on and what we
have seen is that even for very
controversial topics like when we did
this for uber X and then Airbnb Airbnb
mobilizes the voters by sending an email
to all the Airbnb members in Taiwan and
say go to the polis website and vote for
Airbnb
but because the vote is a
multi-dimensional space like in QV your
your voting is actually very dynamic
it's not a binary yes-or-no question in
polis when they go to the website we've
have seen that people who are recruited
by Airbnb actually only less than one
third stuck to the Airbnb position
after they see a few anu and sentiments
from their fellow citizens they started
thinking maybe it still needs some
regulation and things like that and and
they move toward a much more nuanced way
so my point is that we are so used to
voting being very asymmetric we in
representative democracy we upload maybe
four bits every four years and but the
the the policy decision that impacts us
is highly asymmetrical by in this kind
of day-to-day participatory democracy we
try to design the spaces so that people
can upload a lot of bits so for a
statement you upload one bit and each
poll is conversation maybe has 50
statements so everybody contributed 50
bits into the discussion and if do you
send another statement for other people
to vote on you essentially extend the
solution space by another dimension and
so people start participating much more
and once you have this bandwidth it's
actually very hard for people to buy
votes the concept of buying vote
actually kind of dissipates because it's
a dynamic space where people have a lot
of more flexibility and especially that
people can see after each conversation
or each vote that there are really only
a few things that people disagreed on
and people mostly agree on most of
things most assigned by most of the
people and and this is actually a very
powerful picture for any democracy to
look at because if you look only at
institutional media or even some social
media people would think that there's
only those five things that dominates
people's attention across party lines
across ideological lines across whatever
other lines but actually people have
much more in common it's just they don't
spend calories talking about that and so
this is a actual picture we always get
this picture but this one in particular
is from Kentucky u.s. Bowling Green and
as you can see the topmost group
informed consensus no matter what
whatever your position is on
I don't know gun control or something
what whichever group they are on they
probably agree that's the basic
education they have at a moment is
concentrated on science technology
engineering and math but everybody think
de-stem need to become steamed by adding
our to it
and this is somewhat surprising because
people don't spend much clerics talking
about it but people are surprised to
find no matter whether you're democrat
or republican everybody agree that arts
are important in the steaming education
and schools are not doing that so why
don't we just go ahead and do it there's
really nobody who cannot live with this
idea and so this kind of symmetric bond
ways where people can contribute much
more bits into public discussion makes
it almost impossible to buy votes
because this is emergent this is
crowdsource agenda nobody can beforehand
say you have to support art in education
because that is literally generated
during the process and the same for the
presidential hackathon so if you vote
for issues for priorities or like slider
vote for questions it's always easier
for people with a large enough crowd to
assemble something that is creative but
if you're voting for people of course
that's much harder and so that is the
basic answer I hope yes a follow up it's
true I mean if you want to kind of as a
group get more subsidies from the
government you would then motivate a lot
of people who don't really care about
this project to nevertheless spend one
dollar to care about the project so that
is a valid concern and I think one of
the kind of counter-argument to this is
that but you also introduce people who
otherwise wouldn't care about this house
setup at all to start caring about their
setup and therefore they have much more
room to signal that their interest in
other projects as well because they
wouldn't actually just spend their time
vote on your project and go away like in
our petition platform once you join a
petition it does a kind of Amazon thing
that says there's three other petitions
that you may also be interested at you
might want to look at it as well and so
it gradually just gets more bits from
the participant so I think when we're
still spreading this idea it actually
makes sense to collaborate with people
who want to buy votes because it's free
advocacy but at some point you would
want to structurally limit the option of
buying votes at some point but I think
at the beginning we do these people are
actually our friends
so here's a question on the back so good
question so for for the polis
conversation we're not showing the
detailed analysis until the very end so
but people see a kind of general shape
and for quadratic voting as well we're
not showing during devoting the actual
score that thing that the issues get it
can actually be experimented to both
ways one way of the one of the idea of
showing a vote is that it will actually
increase the participation rate for
people who know that their project is
currently at the twenty first place and
they really want to mobilize people to
put it into the top twenty on the other
hand that may actually result in a lot
of churn by just two groups mobilizing
for different things but maybe there's a
good idea maybe we should try that but
in the initial experiment we are more
conservative about it so we basically
said not even the jury get to see the
final result the jury makes our
feasibility assessment in independently
but we don't see the popularity part we
just do our feasibility ranking and the
popularity part is open up as the same
time as we are feasibility and
innovation ranking and so the QV
actually takes 30% of the weight but the
QV results are revealed in the
presidential hackathon in the same time
as the the jury's reports but next time
maybe we will try to first also increase
the ratio of Carter activity because all
the juries feel that they provide as
good actually better signal than we do
so we really shouldn't claim seventy
percent
maybe we should claim maybe just thirty
percent we should flip that around and
the next thing is that we should also
work out roughly what ways to reviews
just interim results during the
quadratic voting that's a very fruitful
line of thinking because I think it will
also improve advocacy but to some degree
yeah we'll see so what I really mean is
that is a good idea and we'll think
about it yes yeah right so the numbers
are out on github for everybody to to to
analyze I think Peters quadratic
get up by in in a nutshell we found two
things first people really don't want
squandering their points so even for
people who just vote nine votes on
project and never change it they will
still want to spend the other 18 points
because nobody want to squander their
dear voice credits and the second thing
is that there are people who after
voting for the third or fourth project
realize that this one warrants more
attention and take some of the initial
votes out but I don't have to exact
numbers of the percentage of people who
actually did it but because our
comparison it was the unit owed system
of people just go and voting though
right so as long as there are some
percent of people who result in more
careful consideration it's a win overall
yeah right so um that's a really good
question so with some was the same
pseudonym level of protection for things
like slider or a petition or
presidential Hakkasan it's very
difficult to imagine a retaliation
scenario right so because of that zero
knowledge is is less desire because it's
one more thing to explain but people
don't really fear retaliation for
preferring one SDG over another it's
very hard to imagine a retaliation
scenario but when voting for people like
voting for mayors or voting for
president of course there is a high
likelihood of retaliation and for gaming
as well and that's when I think the zero
knowledge technology starts being useful
that actually goes really well into the
next radical exchange idea which is no
not this one
there's our president so the radical
exchange idea of data dignity so
basically that's actually very relevant
to your idea there's this idea of
privacy right about the information that
I know or only I am my parents know but
generally it's not know about us but
there's also the idea of inverse privacy
which is large corporations or hospitals
or whatever have data that I didn't
explicitly give them I just gave them as
part of transaction but because I'm not
really well-informed
they end up using those data to make
decisions about me
without my phone knowledge and so that's
kind of the idea of inverse privacy that
I am not even aware that I have data
that is in custody of the data operators
and and that is what the data dignity
idea from radio exchange is trying to
address it's basically saying we should
look at all the different technologies
including zero-knowledge technologies
but also differential privacy and split
learning and also open algorithm all
sort of pockets that gets people first
that what they care about is whether the
people using their personal data is
acting in their best interest and
whether they can know for sure that they
are acting in their best interest and
this is actually a very intuitive
understanding because if I'm going to
intentionally tell my personal
information to my doctor to my
accountant to my nurse or whatever my
lawyer I would say that that's the
second they stop acting in my best
interest is the time that I switch a
lawyer or I switch a doctor right and
but the problem of the current data
operatives is that it's largely opaque
so even when they are acting in my best
interest there's no easy way for me to
know that and if they are start to act
not in my best interest there's no easy
way for somebody to to write a sequel
query or a Sparco query and tell me to
just do this query to the data operator
to find out whether they're acting in my
best interest or things like that
and so have figuring out this
relationship with large platforms some
of them are growing their confidence
board and setting up their own Supreme
Court as we speak and issuing their own
cryptocurrency but in in any case we are
what we're trying to figure out is how
to establish a data collaborative
relationship so that people in general
don't have to all learn the intricate
mathematic but can translate the
intuitions about beta technology we are
operating in the real world
before the internet like as I mentioned
the fiduciary relationships with doctors
and lawyers and whatever and turn those
intuitive social questions and querying
into a shared
protocol so that we can run this to all
the telecom operators all the social
media operators and so on and to find
out whether they are actually acting in
my best interest and if they are not
maybe they would like to compensate me
somehow or maybe I would just exercise
my data Portability rights and move it
to some other operators so that's the
basic intuition about data dignity its
mmm I would say that it's in a art like
speculative design it's sometimes hard
to tell art and speculate if this lie
apart but in any cases in art /
speculative design space at this moment
there are some mathematical as you
mentioned independence of it but the
main communication challenge now is just
to make those mathematical underpinnings
intuitive to everyday use and so that we
can gain legitimacy from the society to
start introducing those legislations and
norms not really legislations maybe
start with norms with the large
corporations so I don't really have a
lot of time to get into the details but
if you google for data at dignity
there's several lines of thoughts around
that as well as pretty aren't around the
space of making toasts and things like
that so but I will not spoil that so so
that's the basic idea around just
privacy as a kind of relationship data
is relationship and not as oil there's
really nothing comparable from oil to
data they are like exact opposites but
in any case so any other questions from
the audience yes there so you first yeah
yeah so somebody does a great question
is about whether I can share some
stories about people who are
conservative and don't really want
anything to do with this kind of public
sector innovation and and how I may be
change people's minds so I think that
the trick here is that so my three
working condition is radical
transparency which I talked about
location independence anywhere I'm
working I'm working that's why I can get
those very interesting office hours in
the very creative space like the Social
Innovation Lab which by the way the
soccer field is drawn by people with
dancing
with trisomy differences so we look at
the world as numbers and text but they
view the world as geometry and so
instead of treating them as vulnerable
populations they are actually creative
artists that make everybody creative in
this place so that's my second working
condition is that I get to pick where I
work and but the third thing is
voluntary Association so my office is
kind of special because I'm a horizontal
ministry in Taiwan there's 32 vertical
ministries each was a vertical minister
with a top-down committing relationship
but above the 32 there's nine people who
are horizontal ministers and whose work
is essentially reconciling the different
values of different ministries and so my
office is one delegate from each
ministry so theoretically I can have 32
volunteers from 32 ministries but in
reality not all ministry have sent
people in that answers your question
for example the Ministry of Defence
never sent anyone I wonder why
maybe they don't like radical
transparency but anyway the Ministry of
continental China Affairs never sent
anyone I wonder why but after a year of
my work as tution ministry the Foreign
Service actually sent somebody because
they realized that there's a part of
diplomacy called public diplomacy that
they want the max amount of engagement
and there's really no national secret so
the idea of very simply put is that
people come to me if they want to work
out loud if they want to convey through
the cross ministry or network they work
to everybody but if they prefer to work
in secret
I'm not going to knock down the Ministry
of Defense door and said tomorrow you
have to livestream your meetings I'm
totally not doing that so because of
that there's there's less push backs but
when we started the National petition
platform where people start realizing
with 5,000 people joining they can get a
ministry or response and some early
successes like a co-creation of a tax
filing experience because a designer
petitions saying the text filing
experience is explosively hostile and
and then we invited everybody into
co-creation and made a text finance
service for this year that 98% of people
likes so that's a early success story
there's also early success about banning
the plastic straws and replacing them
with like sugar cane
waste or some kind of circular economy
material that's also a success so after
a few of those early success we get the
weirdest petitions they are said
petition 8,000 people strong asking
Taiwan to change the time zone to the
same as Japan so we are UTC plus 8 and
8,000 people want to change to UTC plus
9 and at the same time 8,000 people want
us to keep in UTC plus 8 so you can't
please both sides if you say we change
to 8.5 for North Korea and then dad
probably please nobody and so we
actually have to invite both sides into
face to face meetings and and that's
when the most ministry is involved after
I started just bombarding them with the
arguments that we got from the petition
platform that people said things like it
would change in the time zone we save
energy will increase tourism will
increase a stock exchange trading
whatever and we pestered each ministry
to come up with factual response of how
it doesn't actually save energy
it doesn't actually increase tourism
unless you're willing to violate labor
law and so on and and calculate a
quantifiable like dollar value of the
one-time cost of changing the timezone
and a recurring cost that we have to
continually pour into it and many
ministries are like our Minister are
really seriously trying to respond to
two such petitions but it turns out
after revealing all this data people
then start to talk about their feelings
if you don't have people on the same
page when it comes to facts people just
share their feelings on while they
different imagination scenarios but if
we have the facts and share the
objective facts with everybody including
the dollar value that is going to be
required I'll change the timezone people
actually start sharing their true
feelings like people who petition 4 + 9
started saying we do this because we
want I want to be seen as more unique in
the world they want people traveling
from the airports of Beijing and
Shanghai having to change their clock
for some reason signifying different
jurisdiction maybe and people on the on
the other side of petition who is in
same room correctly points out first
smartwatches and phones now auto adjust
your timezone so people are not going to
be aware of it
there's many jurisdictions with many
time zones like Australia or the US
right and and so I mean it really
doesn't work and if we're going to spend
that much money after all it could be
done in a much more effective way
like popularizing and filming about
marriage equality about human right
about democracy of our referendum right
about open government and so they
started brainstorming and decided that
maybe spending that money on these kind
of promotion is much better than
changing the time zone which are not
going to have much of benefit other than
giving us maybe five minute of
international recognition and and for
silliness we just wrote that response to
post petitioners and then the ministries
realized that if they don't tackle this
in a factual fashion then people are
just going to recurring one that every
other time that's there's a
parliamentary session some Legislature
will actually just take that and just
start asking the same question over
again but if you just address those
people's questions and bring them into
the co-creation then people will feel
that they have went through this policy
question they will not be misled by
misinformation and then they will always
think oh actually it that's not going to
be cost-effective and we're going to
promote our in some other way and so
what started as kind of pushback or at
least resistance from Korea public
service become actually much more better
once they realized that oh this now
16,000 people is going to help them to
justify their public work instead of
just distracting them through the
changing of times a mess and so that
gradually won't their heart back by
realizing that there's no risk involved
and the time they spend into it actually
pays dividends amortized over time so
there was sorry so yeah well I think
they come to my office because they know
that there is literally twelve different
ministries volunteering to join this
program so I'm not a single person I'm
somebody that can channel through 12
different ministries and and get them
into the space of listening of
really understanding what they have to
say and so I think this kind of what we
call servant leadership or horizontal
leadership it's really about getting
sufficient amount of buy-in from your
fellow colleagues and understanding that
all the they are giving is their
attention and their ability to listen
and this technology is really only about
listening at scale and it's not about
fighting a zero-sum game or something
like that
certainly that people vote on slide oh
it's just about the relative order that
I answer the questions is not about a
referendum is not binding a legislative
level and so this more weakened binding
power of channeling through the
different ministries I think is the main
thing that I offer and why people come
to my office hour and I would also add
that it's not only people come to my
office hour because after I set up the
office hour I realized that it's only
people in Taipei or people living near a
high-speed rail station they can
physically travel to move Taipei with no
problem like from the southwest of
Taiwan it's just an hour and a half to
travel to Taipei but people who are in
the rural areas in the mountain areas in
indigenous lines in offshore islands
they don't really have that convenience
of just come to my office hours so if I
just keep being in Taipei I will
actually be biased by the people
visiting me so that's when I started
intentionally every other Tuesday to
visit the people who are least likely to
come to my office hour and meet in their
local habitat if their local meeting
place so they may be meeting in their
town hall may be may be meeting with
their elders in their indigenous nation
assembly or whatever and then I'll just
spend a day or two just living with them
and doing a s no graphic or just hanging
out and making sure that whatever they
have to say is in a public on the record
so that people will talk about public
affairs instead of a private interest
and then whatever they say is then
livestream both ways
to Taipei where the twelve ministries
are sitting there and listening to their
ideas and so in Taiwan we say in
Mandarin Jaime and sentencing meeting
face-to-face is 30 percent of trust so
meeting through high-speed video
conferences
maybe 20% of trust and they will learn
that previously when they talk to
Ministry of Interior the mo I would say
oh this is a good idea about how to copy
the Ministry of Health or I have to copy
the ministry of economy but turns out
each copying is very lossy in its
compression whatever their full story is
is lost in maybe two a4 papers maybe
five power PowerPoint slides and then
the other municipalities or other
ministries thought they solve the
problem that actually solved that wrong
problem but with this arrangement
because all the section Chiefs are on
the same room the Minister of Interior
cannot say I'll have to copy the
Ministry of Health because the Ministry
of Health is sitting right next to them
and so with their local people watching
they actually have to brainstorm right
on the spot and solve the problem right
here and if they solve it they get a
full credit compared to the previous
battle days where if they solve the
problem their minister get a credit now
they get a credit and if they really
doesn't help and people become angry
well you can't really hurt people over
the screen so I absorb the risk because
I'm the only person in that person and
say and and so from a safe space afar
they can try to brainstorm also
different ideas and gorge its response
from the local people in the local
elders in post meaning of that word and
so the the idea is that if we go to
people instead of asking people to come
to technology I would argue that it
actually works even better than the
office our arrangement because you say
you're going to copy that so I have to
say that if you just go where people are
it's actually even better results I hope
that answer your question so there was a
question over there yes so you mean the
technological application well so truth
to be told most of time we just use
spreadsheets yeah but we also have our
own cybersecurity Department audited
technology called sandstorm and this is
something I think that's still pretty
useful even it's now entirely a open
source project and we're kind of a team
maintaining it now but in any case this
is useful especially if you're working
in public sector
because public sector would like to know
touch the underlying access control and
they're lying auditing underlying
several security system is hardened and
we have the department cyber security
working with white hat hackers that won
second place in DEFCON half a year using
an open-source audit and they file three
CVS and finally said that this is very
secure and there's security entire
platform so that you can run any
arbitrary open-source applications on
top of it the most popular one being
ordering bento ordering lunch box
together but in any case you can very
easily using javascript write your or
whatever language write your own project
and usual community ones like hack MD
which is the open source for cocoa DMD
is what we use every day just by
bringing it into the sandstorm
application market space of course I
personally maintained spreadsheet in it
eater calc and we use of course we can
which is a straight copy of travel and
so on and so forth and so all the
productivity software can be used kind
of free of charge and within a really
cybersecurity fasten'd workspace so
that's the the main thing that we push
but we also of course also maintain
paulus and also maintain all sort of
different technologies I think that the
point here is just to use whatever open
source technology that the free software
community at the moment is using and
incorporating it in a way that is
compatible with your server security
agenda I think that's the basic idea yes
so the two things right I showed polis
which is the kind of open-ended wiki
survey thing and it's on github you can
very easily use it if you want to use
quadratic voting in a closed system
setting like a board meeting would
actually suggest you just use
spreadsheets but if you need a highly
interactive one I would suggest you
looking into the Colorado system the
Santiago series system that they made it
hi open-source and it's on github any of
you can't set it up you have support
here you can't just use Santiago right
and so because their UI is better than
ours and and also you don't have to
translate from rendering back to English
so
I think that's the two advantage there's
questions over the back no no okay we're
good
all right so we have what 15 minutes 15
minutes so yes so I'll just give maybe a
few seconds to each question so two
people would like to know whether the
slides are public yes all my slides are
a public it's on issue I'll maybe tweet
about it but just to make sure it's if
you want to download it you can do so
now it's Peters TWU which issue calm and
public digital innovation space the
Taiwan the TW and so this is the slide I
made some last-minute changes so I
updated right after the talk and many
other ideas like the gender impact
assessment the digital dialogues and so
on are all on the same website so feel
free to consult this line you mention
identities are government issues who
generates and control the private keys
for these identities and hard private
keys managed far as I know our current
generation of a ID card is kind of like
or maybe just Java card that they just
generate in a secure in clave
tamper-proof ish I think that are
generated upon production and the
private key is never copied out to any
place so it realized on the kind of
physical support of the ID the new Eid
starting next year is also going to be
vital to compliant and also we're
looking into waste to work with security
chips in phones such as HTC that can
securely store private keys that are
compatible with our IT system and it
will be API based because nowadays in
Taiwan when we buy a new procure a new
government service if the vendor said
that I can only serve human beings and
not robots not api's we can actually
disqualify them for discrimination well
for for a non professionalism it's just
like ten years ago
if you
run into a procurement where your vendor
says I can only serve with people with
sightedness but not people with
blindness you can disqualify them for
discriminating or actually for you know
unprofessionalism so now we're saying
robots are people I guess we're using
the same procurement clause that says if
your ministry your agency that contracts
out requires a mission to machine
interface of an API using the Linux
Foundation standard open API 3 and you
cannot deliberate and then you just get
disqualified if you said you require 3
times the procurement money to deliver a
API version you can also be disqualified
and so because of that it this kind of
API first design it's really part of the
government digital service standard now
in Taiwan so because of that we get much
better integration with third-party
scenarios and use cases and especially
you know devices like virtual reality
and makes a reality which is far beyond
any procurement agency's ability to to
spec but if we just deliver the open API
it's very creative people from mixed
realities just started coming out with
very interesting interface to public
services after all and so we're going to
apply the same idea to our IT
infrastructure starting next year as
well but nowadays this is based on a
physical card
okay so Orin Macmillan would like to
know in my opinion what is the optimal
cost for one don't mean quadratic voting
in finance well this is kind of by
definition quadratic the square of the
of the vote required the entire design
of QV or qf is predicted on the fact
that if you analyze what each marginal
vote can do in terms of the social value
it created or captured
it makes the marginal return the same as
marginal cost if you price it so that
it's not quadratic like five points buys
you five votes then it's actually too
cheap for that and people which just use
the strategy to just vote whatever the
votes they have on a single one and but
if you prize it differently
and basically the optimal converging
point is that if the return is the same
as the cost yes right so I mean it just
is a more practical question this is not
a a theoretical question because s a
co-op or as a government you probably
already have a allotted of budget too
much with and beyond that you're just
going to proportionally match and in the
worst case analysis if you have zero
dollars to match then what this is
actually going to do is perhaps just
looking at the total area and make sure
that X only get this number of funding
and use this funding to to write if you
don't have anything to match all you can
do is redistribute and then you can
redistribute with zero matching making
sure that everything is still
proportional to the square of the sum of
the square roots and you still gets the
same shape of course now taking this
very wealthy and I don't know like very
social proof social vendor and
contributor to is essentially subsidized
for everybody else and you can still
imagine that arrangement working if
people are generally agreeing that
you're honest and polity and a good
thing for the group is also indirectly
good for the single person of course if
you don't have that social arrangement
matching is of course a better incentive
so that this person don't ragequit or
something like this but you can easily
imagine the spectrum between those two
polar ends and design accordingly okay
okay so we have ten minutes
I don't worry about about buying at this
stage I've already explained it this I
already explained so how do I get
different ministries to work to or a
common goal this is a great question so
the good thing about the rxc vision is
that it doesn't really have to be a
common goal it could be just a common
value and it's very different each
ministry carry about the social business
governance environment still care about
whatever goes that they care about we're
not asking them to reduce their goals
well we're essentially asking is
they also consider the values of other
ministries when they formed their goals
and so this is the idea of collaborative
governance or Koga is essentially just
by getting people into the habit of
working out allowed most of the time day
just automatically have a copy of other
ministries people in their mind they
develop a theory of mind of other
ministries so that when they go about
forming their goals they will also check
whether it works with the common values
of the other ministries people we which
they shared you know this kind of
meetings and this kind of very good
creative space and also excellent food
food is also very important every time
that I participate into those regional
evaluation tours we make sure that there
is a resident chef and and that it opens
until 11 p.m. so that people can enjoy
food after the meeting since the one and
so if people share over food there are
values most of the time they would just
start forming a common values it's kind
of automatically because they will have
a copy of their other people's values in
their mind and when they're making
decisions they will kind of
automatically consider those different
values instead of just their own
positions but this is through osmosis no
amount of mechanism design can force
that happen but you can incentivize that
to happen so Wilde molasses I would like
to know government plays a essential
role in coordinating humanity but in
some places in most places it's
inefficient and harmful well mostly
inefficient mostly harmless but
sometimes harmful and are you optimistic
about the centralized coordination yes I
am really optimistic about the
centralized coordination because it's
cheaper than centralized coordination
before the the great thing that is the
internet and into an in-principle in
permissionless innovation we can't
really say the same because at that time
hierarchical communication is cheaper
but now it's actually more expensive to
limit your messages audience you have to
think about it and but if you make your
message public you don't have to think
about it and and so basically the
internet reconfigured the movements so
that the mostly the thing you have to
think about
is a domain name maybe in DNS or ENS
maybe you have to think about the right
hashtag but beyond that it is in the
hands of the crowd it's in the hands of
collective intelligence you don't really
have to be kind of the choking point of
the coordination and that really is the
idea of the centralization and that's
not because we kind of believe it and
ideologically because we're lazy and
this is more efficient and so I think
that's the main main motivation it is
somewhat determined by the idea of open
Internet which is why critical core
Internet infrastructure is so important
to protect but I think the government
nowadays at least in Taiwan are also
learning that it's better if instead of
just sending a message to everybody and
getting everybody classified as spam
it's maybe better just to make memes of
our policies and make memes of our
clarifications and then people is just
you know organic wholly spread out and
remix it and things like that and so
just you know we actually poach people
from 9gag and so on to make sure that we
package our communication material in a
way that is are organically viral and
and making sure that people can use the
horizontal actionable extensible and
collaborative way of just making the
social innovations and that fields
belonging to the social sector like air
boxes instead of having the government
play always in a arbitrating or role
that blocks innovation so that's the
basic idea do you have working
regulations in place to regulate
industry such as exchanges in the ICAO
as we do and we have this idea which I
can't really explain in detail for four
minutes time but the basic idea is the
same box the same box is a really simple
idea that and it started this I think
from the UK the Singapore also roll it
out for a fin tech buy in Taiwan stem
box is general purpose as in
general-purpose computing if you go to
sandbox or GTW you see Sam boss
applications around every ministry
really at least a dozen ministries and
so there may be a sandbox about I don't
know a scooter rental
maybe some parks about
you know using your mobile phone as your
banking card maybe about self-driving
tricycles and not even tricycles because
our self-driving sandbox doesn't really
care about a vehicle so it could be a
card that flies or shipped out it goes
to a land or whatever but in any case
State once you have an innovation and a
place that want to work with you and we
coach that place to serve as a one-year
sandbox and so it could be a FinTech
cryptocurrency a whatever arrangement
but if at the end of the one year people
accept it's a good idea then your forked
version of regulation become our
regulation and the minister's actually
don't have to rule on things that we
don't have the first-hand experience of
so everybody get one year of first-hand
experience of course the MP at any time
can say oh we want a special law about
it but they can take three years or four
years for self-driving vehicles to make
a special law about that particular
innovation but during their lawmaking
process your experiment is still legal
so it becomes kind of limited time
monopoly because everybody else is still
illegal and you can still operate your
business within that three or four years
time frame but I did the time where it
has a new law
done pertaining to your business of
course competitor will enter the market
so what Taiwan is essentially offering
is a safe space for you to experiment
your ideas and if the ideas doesn't work
well thank you for paying the tuition
for everybody I guess but if it does
work then your version of regulation
just becomes our national regulation so
between text and box I think it's not a
new idea certainly not unique to Taiwan
but we're applying it to all sort of
different regulations and municipality
rules what what kind of public decision
do I think in this suit for QV and what
it's not so this is for you to find out
but what I think is what's obviously is
is that like participatory budgeting
it's a agenda-setting power that's set
aside that adds something an element of
innovation and doesn't take anything
away and in this kind of agenda setting
people are much more tolerant even if
it's a total disaster even if
nobody turn out voting but we would say
that we learned something but if this is
about electing your mayor's electing
your president that may not be a good
idea
so basically choose things that vote for
things not people but also making sure
that the things are extra things instead
of taking away things you had a question
well we're already using Ledger's in in
decisions as I mentioned about airbox
and later on water parks and so on we're
using Ledger's so that people who don't
quite believe in each other can still
contribute to the Commons to the data
Commons and so for that particular
application Ledger's are are great it's
not like we have other technologies that
can stop this same problem but for many
other scenarios we were not
automatically using Ledger's sometimes
all you need is a database so I think
this is just a tool in the toolkit is a
very powerful tool but it's used only
when you have a multi-party non-mutually
trusting relationship that nevertheless
want to work on common data and and so
nowadays there is a pretty good flow
chart in the Taiwan public sector of
when to use Ledger's and when not to use
Ledger's yeah I mean if transaction rate
can be faster there's more applications
but that's what they've come is for
right and and but for for air quality
measurement and so on I think this is
the current generation of technology is
useful enough because they're using
zero-g Network anyway MB IOT and someone
and MPI ot has very limited bandwidth
anyway so it's not like it will saturate
their writing to the ledger so I think
so far using only M aspheric or
environmental data we're matching what
the current capacity of the ledger
technology in play but of course if
there's better and faster transaction
rate of course we can do more and we're
at time so as I mentioned sorry about
the other 14 people who propose
questions but didn't get sufficient
number of votes maybe people should buy
votes beforehand but if you're
interested in the in the rest of the
ideas after taken data dignity there's
the idea of common ownership of identity
a community and so on please feel free
to just follow the relative exchange
with Twitter account
as well as just my Twitter accounts is
Audrey tau D are you white C on Twitter
and feel free to email or a tweet or
whatever and thank you for this two-hour
session thank you
[Applause]
you