Abstract

Crypto services undermine traditional forms of governance because its users are anonymous. This assumes impunity from government and central authorities. The collective consensus of crypto coders, miners, and anonymous micro actors in a growing subculture. To date, crypto has been relatively untouched by the authorities of the “real-world” and raises important questions on about how this space should be regulated. Techno-Libertarians envision utopian self-regulation, with codified rules that evolve with its technology. Crypto-anarchists envision a free-rule zone for autonomous businesses and unconstrained virtual currencies. Anyone who denies these programmatic rules essentially forfeits their right to participate.

In this second section, the crypto power hierarchy will be defined as a basis for understanding its governance in contrast to the real world.

System Essentials

Understanding crypto requires an analysis of the equation and makes these platforms happen. Modern systems are run by a combination of people, process, and technology: whether it be in government, companies, or our personal lives. Technology is foundational to enabling systems to function and grow efficiently.

Every industry requires rules and procedures that allow humans to collectively utilize resources in the most efficient way possible. In the System Essentials equation, this resides in Process. For example, a person may use software to develop a new car engine. But that goal requires a project plan, timeline, and the coordination of many individuals to achieve this goal. Harmony is achieved when People bring innovation and Technology is an effective instrument. The process is then used to scale the solution. The process is also used to govern the system in question, with the help of technology.

“People add vulnerability to a system
 by their mere presence.”

In the blockchain, it is generally agreed that the combination of Process and Technology establishes programmatic self-governance. Blockchain rules are implemented in code, for the system to be self-sustaining.

Smart Contracts is a blockchain application where terms are agreed and written in code. Settling contracts are programmatic, eliminating the need for a human arbitrator. In this example process and technology work in harmony to settle contracts, removing the subjectiveness of people.

The self-governing autonomy of blockchain breaks down when people are involved. Humans are the strongest and weakest links of the Systems Essentials equation. People leave vulnerabilities in code, intentionally or not, for others to exploit. For example, a system can have the best security in the world, but clever social engineering techniques such as, “I am the new admin, please send me your password”, has led to massive security breaches[i]. The bottom line is that throughout blockchain’s first decade, code-based governance has not been sufficient to protect the crypto ecosystem and its users. The crypto community can learn a few things from the banks they are trying to topple. Understanding the weakest links in the System Essentials equation helps to systematically mitigate vulnerabilities.

About the Author

Gabriel is the co-Founder and General Manager at Adel Ecosystem Ltd. He is a seasoned sales and marketing expert with over 25 years in senior positions at Motorola, VeriSign (acquired by Symantec in 2010), and SecureWorks (acquired by Dell in 2011), and Cognitive Security (acquired by Cisco in 2013). He is a blockchain entrepreneur, with strengths in international business strategy. Gabriel has a bachelor’s degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University in Canada and expert knowledge in blockchain incubation, cloud computing, IT security, and video streaming, and Over the Top Content (OTT). Gabriel also runs his own company, Euro Tech Startups s.r.o, creator of MyKoddi, and manages a professional blog.

Abstract

Crypto services undermine traditional forms of governance because its users are anonymous. This assumes impunity from government and central authorities. The collective consensus of crypto coders, miners, and anonymous micro actors in a growing subculture. To date, crypto has been relatively untouched by the authorities of the “real-world” and raises important questions on about how this space should be regulated. Techno-Libertarians envision utopian self-regulation, with codified rules that evolve with its technology. Crypto-anarchists envision a free-rule zone for autonomous businesses and unconstrained virtual currencies. Anyone who denies these programmatic rules essentially forfeits their right to participate.

In this second section, the crypto power hierarchy will be defined as a basis for understanding its governance in contrast to the real world.

Code Governance, But…

One intention of blockchain is code-based governance, but the results to date have not been entirely positive. The crypto sphere is plagued with corruption, fraud, theft, and misappropriation. So how has this been possible in light of tight rules and high security in the bitcoin blockchain, designed to prevent fraud?

Criminals are often the first to recognize the potential of new technology to exploit human and technical vulnerabilities. The press helps to taint the industry with a rubber neck society more interested in bad news than good news. Proponents of blockchain consider this a temporary label while the technology matures. The inception of home computing in the 1980s had its own challenges when the industry lacked useful applications, and in the 1990’s when the Internet lacked the “World Wide Web”[i] information space. Decades of development have evolved cyber into useful content and applications, and consumers automatically bypass the 99.9% percent of content that doesn’t interest them.

Understanding blockchain’s vulnerabilities require a breakdown of its weaknesses. With any new platform that has yet to be hardened[ii], nefarious parties look for a quick win. Criminals target a weakness in the technology, processes, or people – the latter representing a most vulnerable component of any system. In the business world, these security vulnerabilities are called, “low hanging fruits”[iii], and criminals run their empires similar to any legitimate business. Security issues do not necessarily reside in the blockchain itself, but within the service layers on top. It’s analogous to building a house with the ground floor secured with the most sophisticated locks in the industry, but the second floor has yet to install a roof. Popular fraud involves phishing[iv] emails with a, “click on my link” approach, which installs a zero-day exploit kit[v], or some variant of a zero-pixel iframe with exploit code, when the victim clicks on a web link[vi].

In any case, targeting weaknesses in technology, process or people is the tip of the iceberg. The bitcoin blockchain wanted to remove traditional middlemen from the finance supply chain, and directly connect buyers and sellers. But this proved impractical for the same reason it’s impractical for citizens to buy petrol directly from an oil drilling company. Middlemen connect big industries to the common person. Middlemen offer services that ease the complexity of the supplier and bring their product to the consumer’s front door. The same has evolved in the blockchain. Services such as crypto trading exchanges began launching in 2013[vii], allowing a new wave of trading opportunities for millennials. The catch was users needing to give up their bitcoin private keys to the trading service. This immediately negated the benefits of blockchain’s decentralized resilience and established a layer of vulnerability on top of the bitcoin blockchain. All private keys were now residing in a central repository. With improper security in place, a clever criminal realizes he can climb onto the second floor of a trading service with no roof – and steal everything.

Banks have decades of experience protecting their infrastructures. They utilize the ISO 27001 security best practices[viii]. They use the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS)[ix] to protect their credit and debit cards. But many blockchain coders do not have data security at the top of their agenda, utilizing these common frameworks. This has led to a series of massive crypto heists[x]. These breaches continue to plague the industry. The graph above showcases a selection of the largest hacks. What is astonishing is when breaches are brought to the context of their current value. These samples alone represent loses of over 13 billion US$:

Systematic crypto fraud cannot be entirely blamed on their respective development code. People are the weakest link. Blockchain services created additional layers of middlemen to enhance service offerings and expand market potential. But each layer introduces a new set of weaknesses.

While Satoshi Nakamoto set out to negate the centralized power of governments and central banks, Bitcoin has reestablished new monopolies with five miners currently control 80 percent of the mining pool[xi]. Crypto-Anarchists may argue that this is completely fine because the open market decides on how everything plays out. But the counter-argument is that monopolies are not good for innovation and healthy market expansion. Monopolies lead to market manipulation, predatory pricing, and highway robbery. In brick and mortar, the crypto community views banks and governments as the puppet masters, but crypto has its own problems. Recent studies attribute the Bitcoin spike to 16000 Euros in December 2017 to manipulation[xii].

“The threat of monopolies leads to speculation that
all players in the crypto trading market are puppets to unseen, and omnipresent puppet masters”[xiii].

About the Author

Gabriel is the co-Founder and General Manager at Adel Ecosystem Ltd. He is a seasoned sales and marketing expert with over 25 years in senior positions at Motorola, VeriSign (acquired by Symantec in 2010), and SecureWorks (acquired by Dell in 2011), and Cognitive Security (acquired by Cisco in 2013). He is a blockchain entrepreneur, with strengths in international business strategy. Gabriel has a bachelor’s degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University in Canada and expert knowledge in blockchain incubation, cloud computing, IT security, and video streaming, and Over the Top Content (OTT). Gabriel also runs his own company, Euro Tech Startups s.r.o, creator of MyKoddi, and manages a professional blog.

Abstract

Crypto services undermine traditional forms of governance because its users are anonymous. This assumes impunity from government and central authorities. The collective consensus of crypto coders, miners, and anonymous micro actors in a growing subculture. To date, crypto has been relatively untouched by the authorities of the “real-world” and raises important questions about how this space should be regulated. Techno-Libertarians envision utopian self-regulation, with codified rules that evolve with its technology. Crypto-anarchists envision a free-rule zone for autonomous businesses and unconstrained virtual currencies. Anyone who denies these programmatic rules essentially forfeits their right to participate.

In this second section, the crypto power hierarchy will be defined as a basis for understanding its governance in contrast to the real world.

What’s Next?

States have many legal challenges in cyberspace. The introduction of crypto has further complicated these efforts by orders of magnitude. Anonymity, Pandemic Protocols, and the over-arching removal of Big Brother’s oversight have diminished state control of its citizens.

This poses three questions:

• How far can crypto evolve? Will crypto services continue to be developed unabated?
• Will crypto be controlled, be a free-rule zone or self-regulated? Regulators typically lag technology advancements, and crypto is the latest example. Their challenge is how to regulate a market with anonymous actors using technology that is decentralized.
• Is a virtual existence a trend for the future? The cyber market has created a platform where actors can live almost entirely in the virtual space. Crypto enables these actors to now be anonymous.

We will attempt to answer these questions throughout the remainder of this paper.

Power Hierarchy

To explain the dynamics between the real-world and cyberspace, evaluating the power hierarchy of both systems puts the current state of play into perspective. From a socioeconomic and cultural perspective, real-world citizens are at the bottom of the pyramid. They are controlled by companies because they hire, pay and fire their employees. Companies are controlled by banks because they provide the finances to run companies. Banks are controlled by governments because they create the legislative, judicial and regulatory oversight that everyone needs to follow.

In crypto the power hierarchy is inverted. At the top, there are core developers who design blockchains. In this system, developers have unanimous control over the programmatic rules they implement. Miners have secondary decision-making powers since they collect the appropriate cryptocurrencies from their efforts in mining. Next, in line are services such as exchanges that facilitate trading. At the bottom are crypto traders. Omitted from this hierarchy is mainstream citizens. This is due to several reasons, starting with the technical learning curve barrier. This creates an artificial exclusionary zone because mainstream applications have yet to accommodate laymen consumers.

The market waits with anticipation for the likes of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google (aka. FAANG[i], on Wall Street) to join the crypto party. In the meantime, crypto faces a ping-pong effect of good and bad news. Earlier in 2018 cryptocurrency took a few steps backward, with Twitter, Facebook, and Google banning advertising, due to market volatility[ii]. Services that connect mainstream users are in development, and their success is one of anticipation and speculation.

“Apps focused solely on the crypto community
risk solidifying virtual currencies to a niche market.”

In developed countries, inclusiveness is driven by human rights, civil liberties, and freedom. In crypto, an unintentional exclusionary zone has been created accommodating techno-savvy individuals who can traverse a steep learning curve. To overcome these barriers, new services, middlemen and educational facilitators will be needed.

This exclusionary zone may not be purposeful, but it exists nonetheless. Traditional banks and governments are also excluded from the crypto power hierarchy. Financial institutions are being disrupted by volatile virtual currencies, while many governments reject crypto because of anonymity.

Crypto may look like a free-rule zone, but it still has governance on a micro-scale. In one sense, actors in crypto are treated as equals: No one knows their social, economic, political, or career status. All participants are members of a collective with respect earned by community dialog and crypto success. Despite an existing crypto social hierarchy, the pyramid is much flatter than in the real world. Actors at the top of the food chain are much more accessible. Judgments are not based on whether the user is sitting in a basement, or on a throne built from swords.

About the Author

Gabriel is the co-Founder and General Manager at Adel Ecosystem Ltd. He is a seasoned sales and marketing expert with over 25 years in senior positions at Motorola, VeriSign (acquired by Symantec in 2010), and SecureWorks (acquired by Dell in 2011), and Cognitive Security (acquired by Cisco in 2013). He is a blockchain entrepreneur, with strengths in international business strategy. Gabriel has a bachelor’s degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University in Canada and expert knowledge in blockchain incubation, cloud computing, IT security, and video streaming, and Over the Top Content (OTT). Gabriel also runs his own company, Euro Tech Startups s.r.o, creator of MyKoddi, and manages a professional blog.

Abstract

Thanks to the Internet and more recently, blockchain technology, the world is waking up to a political, economic, social and technological renaissance. The next two decades will result in a fundamental shift in human interaction, sharing, and freedom. All aspects of vertical and horizontal markets will be affected, including Finance & Banking, Healthcare, eGovernment, Communications, Information Technology (IT) and the Internet of things (IoT).

This series is presented in three parts and will analyze society’s paradigm shift in behavior and present a vision for the future. In this first part, the creation of virtual communities is explored, fueled by blockchain innovation and explores the evolution of the crypto sphere.

State Enforcement

With the proliferation of Pandemic Protocols, what is the recourse for states to enforce their laws? Can actors in these spheres be subjected to controls, restrictions or shutdowns dictated by a state authority? In other words, how can a state enforce its laws in cyber? This is a very complicated issue in view of the borderless phenomena contravening traditional world order. Enforcement has been traditionally based on the juxtaposition of sovereign State territories. In cyber, there is no juxtaposition because there are no borders.

In the persisting absence of unified global rules, the courts are witnessing ongoing chaos where States wildly apply their territorial, personal and extraterritorial jurisdictions to subject the actions of perpetrators to their laws. This leads to diverse conflicts of laws between States. In legal proceedings, the reality is much more complex and continues to be challenged by various states and institutions. In an attempt to simplify, there are the three main considerations used by the States to target perpetrators in cyberspace:

• Infrastructure States can enforce their authority when information technology and communication equipment reside in their country. This could mean complete shutdown, confiscation, or subpoena of equipment. In some countries, this means nation-wide censorship or other controls.
• Corporations States have recourse against corporations or other legally registered in their jurisdiction.
• Individuals Lawsuits may target citizens, whether they are resident in the country, or aboard, it could lead to extradition or deportation for legal proceedings.

State vs. Crypto

State control in crypto continues to be overwhelming. To disseminate this challenge let’s begin with a definition of a Sovereign state. According to Wikipedia[i], Sovereign states can be defined as:

• A defined territory
• Having a permanent population
• The capacity to enter relations with other states, and
• Consisting of an effective government.

In cyberspace, the notion of sovereignty is more abstract. In the era of Pandemic Protocols, state enforcement presents significant challenges to lawmakers because:

• There is no defined territory. The entire infrastructure in the cybersphere is virtual.
• Within cyberspace, blockchain has created a new virtual layer called the crypto sphere. Within this space, actors can behave with impunity under the guise of anonymity. Despite the potential for privacy, this capability has also sparked new forms of fraud that have been orders of magnitude higher than in the real world. Anonymity has led to abuse, misappropriation, and a complete disregard for
• The parallel to a state’s international relations is blockchain’s communities. They maintain their virtual debate and commentary on public forums such as Reddit[ii] or social networks such as Slack[iii] and Telegram[iv].
• Governance is the most controversial in cyber; Techno-libertarians advocate minimizing the oversight of central control whereby Cyber-anarchists want complete removal of government oversight. This leads to the assumption that blockchain achieves self-governance through programmatic means – or “code-based governance”. In other words, the underlying programming code is designed to eliminate the need for human intervention. Crypto popularized this approach by implementing programmatic rules to completely govern the system. With Bitcoin Nakamoto solved the double-spending[v] dilemma and this has since evolved into Smart Contract[vi] Code-based
  governance has not been a silver-bullet[vii] in solving crypto fraud. In the following sections, we explain why.

Terms

Before proceeding further, it’s worth defining several poignant terms integral to this discussion:

• Blockchain ideologist is often associated with Techno-libertarians and Cyber-anarchists in the context of freedom and autonomy. They represent a strong undercurrent that resists centralized control, big brother surveillance, and authoritarian enforcement. Techno-libertarians and Cyber-anarchists may be split on whether crypto has a utopian or dystopian destiny. In the meantime, the-powers-that-be view cryptocurrency as a foe and blockchain as a friend. For this reason, there is a broader movement to support blockchain as a viable evolution to global information sharing.
• Meanwhile, Governance and Sovereign State control bring a sour taste to those who resist central control. The cyber movement advocates self-governance and self-sustaining ecosystems. While this plays out, states are trying to appropriate their control. To Cyber-anarchists this is like a bully entering a playground. But the playground is full of geeks, and they are no longer afraid of the bully.
• To cope with the bureaucracy of the real-world, Geeks are motivated to create an entirely new playground and flip the power hierarchy of society on its head. When it comes to virtual currencies maybe it is true that “the geeks have inherited the world”[viii].

“What may be tolerated today,
may become illegal in the future.”

About the Author

Gabriel is the co-Founder and General Manager at Adel Ecosystem Ltd. He is a seasoned sales and marketing expert with over 25 years in senior positions at Motorola, VeriSign (acquired by Symantec in 2010), and SecureWorks (acquired by Dell in 2011), and Cognitive Security (acquired by Cisco in 2013). He is a blockchain entrepreneur, with strengths in international business strategy. Gabriel has a bachelor’s degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University in Canada and expert knowledge in blockchain incubation, cloud computing, IT security, and video streaming, and Over the Top Content (OTT). Gabriel also runs his own company, Euro Tech Startups s.r.o, creator of MyKoddi, and manages a professional blog.

Abstract

Thanks to the Internet and more recently, blockchain technology, the world is waking up to a political, economic, social and technological renaissance. The next two decades will result in a fundamental shift in human interaction, sharing, and freedom. All aspects of vertical and horizontal markets will be affected, including Finance & Banking, Healthcare, eGovernment, Communications, Information Technology (IT) and the Internet of things (IoT).

This series is presented in three parts and will analyze society’s paradigm shift in behavior and present a vision for the future. In this first part, the creation of virtual communities is explored, fueled by blockchain innovation and explores the evolution of the crypto sphere.

Pandemic Protocols

The borderless movement may be technology-led, but not all initiatives are thanks to cyber. For example, Global Positioning System[i] (GPS) technology was deployed by the USA military in 1973 to overcome limitations of navigation systems. This network was opened to citizens in 1980 and has since been integrated into virtually every communication device. Iridium was developed by Motorola and began deployment in 1993[ii]. It was designed to provide voice and data coverage over the Earth’s entire surface. These technologies are borderless, but they are centralized in the sense that they are either state or private-owned, with restricted rights of usage and geographical limitations. Meaning, they could be shut down at any minute, leaving every GPS device or Iridium phone in the dark.

It was just a matter of time before such vulnerabilities were overcome. Throughout the 1980s the internet was conceived, notably with the adoption of TCP/IP[iii] in 1983. The Internet was different from preceding communication services, in that its foundation was to create a network that could not be brought down by an enemy force. The TCP/IP protocol was first implemented in the Advanced Research Projects Administration[iv] (ARPANET). The controversy lies in the origins of ARPANET as a means to survive a nuclear attack. Its goals were apparently much broader, in “robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks”[v]. In hindsight, TCP/IP may be considered the first inception of the Pandemic Protocol era; Protocols that are persistent, pervasive and omnipresent; Protocols that are incredibly resilient from the shutdown, due to their decentralized nature, even by the creators themselves.

“Iteration Overcomes Limitations of Its Predecessor.”

Welcome to Pandemic Protocols. In 1999 Peer to Peer[vi] (P2P networks) were introduced. This evolved the notion of client-server architectures with more emphasis on client-to-client communications. But the first interactions of P2P, such as Napster still involved a server. Shutting down this device at the center of the entire system meant that all nodes were disconnected for each other. This vulnerability was soon overcome by Bram Cohen in 2001, through the introduction of BitTorrent[vii]. Cohen took the resilience of P2P to a new level, by removing the vulnerability of the server. The concept of Pandemic Protocols took on new resilience because torrents were now pervasive and omnipresent. Clients could swarm to a torrent, and maintain a presence, as long as there were seeders and leeches exceeding a single copy of the content.

Today’s Pandemic Protocol trend consists of technologies that are resilient to any centralized interference, meaning they cannot be shut down without considerable effort. In fact, they are so pervasive that shutting down these protocols means a complete shutdown of the internet – which itself is pandemic.

About the Author

Gabriel is the co-Founder and General Manager at Adel Ecosystem Ltd. He is a seasoned sales and marketing expert with over 25 years in senior positions at Motorola, VeriSign (acquired by Symantec in 2010), and SecureWorks (acquired by Dell in 2011), and Cognitive Security (acquired by Cisco in 2013). He is a blockchain entrepreneur, with strengths in international business strategy. Gabriel has a bachelor’s degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University in Canada and expert knowledge in blockchain incubation, cloud computing, IT security, and video streaming, and Over the Top Content (OTT). Gabriel also runs his own company, Euro Tech Startups s.r.o, creator of MyKoddi, and manages a professional blog.

Abstract

Thanks to the Internet and more recently, blockchain technology, the world is waking up to a political, economic, social and technological renaissance. The next two decades will result in a fundamental shift in human interaction, sharing, and freedom. All aspects of vertical and horizontal markets will be affected, including Finance & Banking, Healthcare, eGovernment, Communications, Information Technology (IT) and the Internet of things (IoT).

This series is presented in three parts and will analyze society’s paradigm shift in behavior and present a vision for the future. In this first part, the creation of virtual communities is explored, fueled by blockchain innovation and explores the evolution of the crypto sphere.

Defining Borders

Before exploring the evolutionary changes of cyberspace in our social fabric, let’s first understand how we got here. Let’s begin with society’s tendency to erect borders. Some borders are physical, such as land and sea, but others are less obvious. Governments establish political borders to separate enemies from their allies. They restrict the flow of people through passports, visas, and border controls. States use utilities as borders, restricting the use of gas, water, electricity, or even telecommunications.

While these borders control cross-regional competition they also restrict citizens to fewer options. Less obvious are cultural barriers such as language and religion. There are economic borders limiting the street-use of one country’s fiat currency[i] abroad. There are less tangible examples, such as left vs. right side car steering wheels[ii] and metric vs. imperial measurements[iii]. The commercial industry also chimes in with broadcast signal restrictions (PAL vs. NTSC video standards[iv]), and 120V vs. 220V electricity[v]. Some of these borders exist due to localized evolution, but it’s hard to ignore the political motivations of their origin.

Borderless

Even though society tends to erect borders, many actors want to break them down. Initiatives across multiple disciplines are driven by a goal to unify the world. It’s hard to ignore that many of these entries were established in the aftermath of World War I or II, in an effort to learn from the tragedies of our past. Regardless, the effort is ongoing:

• In 1993 the European Union[vi] (EU) was established to unify the economic zones of member states. A global initiative has yet to be attempted.
• The Schengen agreement[vii] came into effect in 1995 (named after the city where it was signed), allowing citizens to freely cross certain borders in Europe.
• North American Free Trade Agreement[viii] (NAFTA, est. 1994) created a trilateral trade bloc in North America.
• North Atlantic Treaty Organization[ix] (NATO) was formed in 1949, establishing a “collective defense” to ensure the atrocities of World War I and II would not be repeated.
• The United Nations (UN) was formed in 1945 “to promote international cooperation and to create and maintain international order” [x].
• International Court of Justice[xi] (ICJ, est. 1945) settles legal disputes between member states.
• International Monetary Fund[xii] (IMF, est. 1945) was established to facilitate international trade, sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world
• European Space Agency[xiii] (ESA, est. 1975) consists of twenty-two-member states dedicated to the exploration of space.
• Various cross-border humanitarian initiatives were established throughout the 20th century, such as:
• The World Health Organization (WHO, est. 1948) mandates the “attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health”[xiv]
• Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, est. 1945) “is charged with collecting, evaluating, and disseminating information relating to nutrition” ^[xv]
• Unicef[xvi] (est. 1946) mandated by the United Nations General Assembly for the protection of children’s rights
• The International Labour Organization (est. 1919) is “devoted to promoting social justice and internationally recognized human and labor rights”. [xvii]
• The borderless movement is also part of international standards initiatives, such as:
• International Telecommunication Union[xviii] (ITU, est. 1865), is one of the oldest intergovernmental organizations in the world. The ITU allocates global radio spectrum, satellite orbits and ratifies international technical standards.
• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers[xix] (IEEE, est. 1963), directed toward the advancement of the theory and practice of electrical, electronics, communications, and computing.
• Internet Engineering Task Force[xx] (IETF, est. 1986) defines Internet operating protocol standards.
• General Public License[xxi] (GPL, or GNU GPL, GNU’s Not Unix! GPL, written by Richard Stallman in 1989) is intended to ensure the freedom to share and improve software for all users.
• International Organization for Standardization[xxii] (ISO, est. 1947), with a mission to promote worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards.
• Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN[xxiii], est. 1998) is a non-profit organization with a goal to ensure a smooth functioning Internet.

Borders are integral to our lives. Technology has helped remove many of them, but some will perpetually exist, such as culture and religion. One of the main catalysts of the borderless movement has been technology and the Internet in particular. The internet brought transparency to the world, and this has led to an awareness of various social, political, and economic levels.

About the Author

Gabriel is the co-Founder and General Manager at Adel Ecosystem Ltd. He is a seasoned sales and marketing expert with over 25 years in senior positions at Motorola, VeriSign (acquired by Symantec in 2010), and SecureWorks (acquired by Dell in 2011), and Cognitive Security (acquired by Cisco in 2013). He is a blockchain entrepreneur, with strengths in international business strategy. Gabriel has a bachelor’s degree in Engineering Physics from McMaster University in Canada and expert knowledge in blockchain incubation, cloud computing, IT security, and video streaming, and Over the Top Content (OTT). Gabriel also runs his own company, Euro Tech Startups s.r.o, creator of MyKoddi, and manages a professional blog.