My name is Coach Coco and I love volleyball. Today we're going to talk about how to receive short and deep passes. Let's review the ready position, but if you don't know me already, my name is Coach Coco and I love volleyball so much that my channels will tip tricks, hacks, and anything you can ever need to know about volleyball. There are some common issues with short and deep passes, like first, the constant diving without need. This means players who dive when it's a short ball rather than adjusting their body to get to the ball without feeling the need to dive. We want to make sure to position ourselves appropriately. Second is using one arm. Sometimes the ball is coming very quickly and we're not ready, so we use the ball with one arm. I've seen this a lot happen. Personally, I was never one of these players who kind of did this, but it's common. We want to make sure to get two hands on the ball. Receiving the ball chest height is also a thing.  This is something that happens quite often when the ball is coming too quickly and we don't know what to do. Backpedal receiving. This means when you're going to get a deep ball and instead of adjusting your body, you backpedal. What happens if somebody's behind you? What if you don't know what's behind you? You could trip and fall. Let's not do that. Some practice drills is you're going to need a partner, so I have my husband here. You need an open space of volleyball and a partner. Now, what you're going to do is make sure that you guys are about five feet apart and you're going to show them how to toss you a short ball, especially if they're not a volleyball player. This will help them understand exactly what kind of ball to get you and get rid of some tossing frustration. But in the meantime, I have some volleyball bracelets on my Etsy store, so help volleyball stay free by supporting my Etsy store and buying a volleyball bracelet. Back to your regular programming, so I have my husband tossing me a short ball. I have a point on the court where I'm standing and I'm going to be in ready position. He's going to give me the ball at a short angle that requires me to adjust and it's challenging for me. If it is too easy, ask him to give you something shorter. You want to keep your platform together and we don't want to break your platform when passing. Also, you want to readjust and go back to that starting point every single time, so that way we can make sure we're staying on target. Now the same thing when you're receiving a deep pass. You have a target on the ground that you're going to keep coming back to. They're going to toss the ball to you behind that target and we're not going to back pedal. Instead, we're going to transition sidestep, which means we're going to open our right foot up to the court by keeping our eye on the court and tossing it back in. Opening with my right foot, crossing over with my left foot, keeping my eyes on the court at the same time, so that way I have every player in the court and I can see. That's one more time. Opening with my right foot, crossing over with my left foot, keeping my eyes on the court. You got to try. It really does help a lot. Okay, back into the drill. You should never have your eyes that are away from the court, so you never want to turn around and run your body away from the court when you're running from a ball and pass backwards. This is why I've never taught you how to pass over the behind your head because it never ends prettily.  Eyes in the court. Nice job. So what you want to practice in this is making sure that you know how to transition your body, both left and right in different angles so you don't get overwhelmed. Make sure you call the ball so we can get into the habit of calling short or deep because it helps people around you and it will help you. I hope that you liked this video. Please like, comment, subscribe, and share this with somebody who needs it. And let me know if this works for you in a game. See you next time.


In my lecture on Monday on the role of the entrepreneur, we discussed how entrepreneurship, this act of bringing goods and services into existence by combining and recombining resources under uncertainty, you know, is central to the entire market process, to the market system. As Mises pointed out, it would be impossible to imagine a market economy without entrepreneurs engaged in this critical function. So you would think that, you know, not only when doing economic analysis, but also socially and culturally, entrepreneurs would be the heroes in our society, right? And it is true, as I pointed out on Monday, that, you know, if you define entrepreneur narrowly to mean, you know, founders of tech companies and so forth, yeah, I mean, people like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg and so forth are very sort of prominent figures and probably lots of kids want to grow up to be the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, which of course is much better than wanting to grow up to be president, which is what they said when I was a kid. Nonetheless, you know, business people in general are not exactly louded in all quarters of our society. I mean, it's pretty common place to observe that for example, in popular culture, in movies and fiction and so forth. You know, the typical villain is always some kind of a business person, some kind of a bad business person, right? You could go back to the Mr. Potter character and it's a wonderful life to Snavely Whiplash and cartoons and one of the James Bond films that had sort of a media magnate as its villain. But you know, when Hollywood is looking for a stock character to do something really horrible, if you had to guess what profession that villain will, you know, what will be that villain's profession, you're most likely to get it right if you select businessman or business person, okay? And of course, this is hardly new, I mean, going back a century or more ever since the rise of kind of large industrial enterprises in the late 19th century, you know, the business person has been portrayed as this sort of blood-sucking leech, right? That's a John D. Rockefeller caricature from 100 years ago, right? Sucking the life out of society and so forth.   I mean, can you imagine life without Google? I mean, what would your life be if Google ceased to exist? It's really hard to imagine. And of course, if you look globally, you have huge companies like Alibaba, right? Of course, Alibaba is responsible for a lot more of global commerce than the US-based tech company. So it's harder to get people nowadays to hate big business if they think big business is this, right? These are good guys. So, you know, how should we analyze from an economic point of view and sort of think about from a policy and normative point of view of the role that big business plays in our society? So let me sort of outline what a free market approach to thinking about big business and the role of government in promoting and constraining big business. Let me suggest what that would look like. I mean, obviously for this audience, I don't need to remind you that if you just look back in history, right? Forget about Google and Amazon. I mean, big business is probably responsible more than any other entity for the phenomenal increase in living standards that human beings have experienced over the past, you know, 150 years. You know, everybody hated Standard Oil, John D. Rockefeller, and certainly as we'll see, there's a lot of cronyism involved with some of those 19th-centrally industrialists. But of course, the main sort of result of John D. Rockefeller's development of the petroleum industry is that we went, you know, from a world in which basically when the sun went down, everybody went to bed, right? To the modern world we have with, you know, with indoor lighting and so forth, right? Just the tremendous gains, tremendous reduction in poverty from 200 years ago to today. It's unimaginable that that could have happened without capitalism, including large industrial enterprise. You know, just think how much worse our lives would be and would be the lives of people around the world without large retailers like Walmart and so forth. You know, everybody outside of our circles loves to hate companies like Walmart, it's driving the mom and pops out of business, doesn't pay its workers a living wage, et cetera. But remember, Walmart does not cater to the Elizabeth Warrens of the world. Walmart caters to low-income people, both as those who consume Walmart's products, but also as those who are employed at Walmart, right? Walmart pays better wages in the small rural communities in which it often operates than those of other companies, you know, as in a similar way to what Ben Powell was discussing yesterday on sweatshops.  Google's founders have done quite well financially, but I mean, all around the world, not just in English-speaking countries, right? It's hard to imagine life without Google. So, first thing I would say is, you know, if we're trying to assess the role of big business or sort of the place of big business, how should we think about big, big, big business? You know, the wrong question is, well, how big is it? Right, if it's really big, it must be really harmful and if it's only a little bit big, it's only a little bit harmful and so forth, right? So, size per se or profitability per se or growth per se is probably the wrong question in assessing a company and the role of a company. I mean, obviously, a lot of companies today are huge, right? Amazon had $68 billion of sales in, this is from 2013. In 2017, the number was $178 billion, all right? So, Amazon is a huge company, makes up a huge portion of the retail market and, of course, is the world's largest retailer by conventional metrics. Some firms have grown rapidly. You might have seen this kind of thing before. You know, we talked about sort of in the modern era and the internet era, firms can grow faster more quickly than they did before. Firms grow more quickly than they used to. You know, it took 68 years for the commercial airline industry to have 50 million users and it took 22 years for the television industry to have 50 million users and, you know, only four years for YouTube and two years for Twitter. Of course, you know what's the fastest of all? Pokemon Go, right? Took 19 days for Pokemon Go to get a 50 million user. So, look, a lot of firms grow very fast but we wouldn't conclude anything about benefit or harm to society merely by looking at growth. You know, as I discussed a little bit in my talk on Tuesday which some of you attended on competition and monopoly, you know, how many firms are in the market is also probably the wrong question. A lot of technology markets are highly concentrated, right? So, Google has a very large share of the mobile search market but very few users of mobile search would claim that, would believe that they are harmed by that market share. You know, look at video streaming, right? You have a small number of pretty large players, right? Netflix is being the dominant player but Amazon Prime and Hulu are on the rise and YouTube subscription based YouTube and so forth. So, you know, those markets are much more concentrated than the stylized perfectly competitive industry of economics textbooks. But again, few of us would claim that, well, Netflix has really harmed the television and movie industry. I mean, I think the Emmy awards that were just a couple of weeks ago, right? For the first time ever, Netflix produced television shows, won more Emmys than those of any other studio. I think it's typically been HBO that's had the most, has won more Emmys than other studios. So, Netflix of course, aside from being a streaming service, Netflix has reinvested much of its earnings from streaming into now being a production studio and producing lots of high quality stuff. I mean, seriously, how much stuff do you watch that's a Netflix original compared to what is produced by ABC or something? That's mostly garbage, right? What we should be asking if we wanna think about the effect of large enterprise on well-being, we wanna understand the nature of large enterprise in society, better question is sort of, you know, how did big business X get big? Right, did it get big by pleasing its customers like Google or Netflix? Or did it get big because it has some kind of special privilege, some kind of monopoly protection or other benefit from the state, okay? So it's kind of a, there's sort of a good cop, bad cop or yin and yang or I don't know what the right metaphor is. But you know, there are kind of good big businesses from that perspective and not so good big businesses, right? So bigness per se doesn't tell us much. The question is, why are large companies large? How did they get large? Now, within the libertarian movement, you know, there's been a variety of views on this type of question. At one end of the spectrum are writers like Ein Rand who wrote a famous essay in the 1960s called America's Persecuted Minority, Big Business. Deliberately provocative title as was her want, right? But Rand was very much reacting against this view that I depicted at the beginning, the way big businesses portrayed in popular culture and Rand said, no look, in fact, if you compare the amount of good done by big business in society with the way big businesses portrayed and assessed by the average person, it's, you know, there's a bigger imbalance there than sort of in any other, with any other type of person or whatever, that really big businesses is driving the economy forward, bringing us tremendous gains and yet big business people are hated, they're reviled, they're ridiculed and so forth. So I think, I certainly understand the point that she's trying to make, but other libertarians have focused more on cronyism or the benefits that some big businesses have gotten from a cozy relationship with regulators and other officials. So starting in the 1960s, you had a different libertarian tradition. Murray Rothbard was very influenced by the left-wing historian Gabriel Kolko, whose most famous book was on the railroad industry, Railroads and Regulation, but he has a very famous follow-up to called The Triumph of Conservatism, which deals with some additional, applies to the thesis to other industries. Kolko's argument was the way that railroads got big in the 19th century was by, mainly through subsidies, through subsidies and special privilege from state, local and the national government. If you've listened to any of Tom DeLorenzo's lectures on Lincoln, he often points out that Lincoln, before becoming president, was a railroad lawyer and lobbyist whose primary activity was to get, basically to expropriate land from private owners and give it to the railroads so that they could build railroad lines more cheaply. Rothbard collaborated with a left-wing historian named Ronald Radosh. He was a left-winger at the time and he became sort of a neoconservative on a book called The New History of Leviathan, which applies this kind of framework to assessing various businesses during the sort of gilded age in early 20th century and showing that in many cases, they did in fact receive, they grew through special privilege rather than through merit. The book on the Progressive Era that was released just earlier this year, this, as you know, I think Patrick Newman talked about this, right? Patrick edited this book based on an unpublished manuscript that was discovered in the Rothbard archives, but it very much takes this perspective that especially during the Progressive Era, when on the surface, the state was reining in big business, what the state was really doing was helping to consolidate and enable certain firms to do better than others, not because they were satisfying their customers, but because they had a cozy relationship with the state. In an unpublished letter written by Rothbard to a friend in the mid 1960s, he said the following. He said, for some time I've come to the conclusion that the grave deficiency in the current output and thinking of libertarians and classical liberals is an enormous blind spot when it comes to big business. While big business would indeed merit praise if they won that bigness on the purely free market, in the contemporary world, this is the mid 1960s, of total neo-mercantilism and what is essentially a neo-fascist corporate state, bigness is a priori highly suspect because big business most likely got that way through an intricate and decisive network of subsidies, privileges, and direct and indirect grants of monopoly protection. No, this is not a praxeological statement, right? This is a kind of, this is a historical assessment. So Rothbard's view in the mid-60s, and this is during this period when he was collaborating with these so-called new left historians, he said, look, you know, he said, the libertarians I see around me, most of whom were devotees of Ein Rand and followed and were influenced by Rand's view on big business. Rothbard says that they really are failing to see how in the real world, most businesses in our society did not become big through satisfying customers but through special privileges. In other words, Rothbard was concerned at that time about what we now would call crony capitalism, right? We all know that there is no country in the world in 2018 that has a purely free market economy. It can be confusing, especially to the late person because the US economy is often described as, you know, a free enterprise economy. Well, of course we have free enterprise in the US. I mean, you've got to define your terms, right? If that means we don't have explicit socialism in the US, I mean, that's true. We don't have state ownership of all the means of production. We have a nominally market economy. Ribut Mises would call it, we would describe it as a mixed economy or maybe a neo-mercantilist economy as one adequate description. You know, it's not at the extreme of Germany in the 1930s as Tom Woods was explaining to us yesterday, but certainly we're far from a free market. But the fact that we use terms like free enterprise or capitalistic or popular pejorative term nowadays is neoliberal. So critics of the market say that, well, the US is, the US and Western Europe follow this neoliberal model, which by which they, it's not clear if they mean, if they think that means free market or they think that means kind of mercantilism or cronyism, it's not sure, but there's a lot of awareness nowadays of issues with so-called crony capitalism. You know, the mainstream media are talking about it. The great book we have in the bookstore by Hunter Lewis called Crony Capitalism in America. There's a, I don't know if you were watching the movie last night, but it was Gene Epstein who used the term capitalism to discuss crony capitalism. I don't know this book by Jason Matera, except that it has a title of Capitalism so it's probably worth checking out. One of Tom Di Lorenzo's old friends, Jim Bennett, recently, I think this last year published a book on corporate welfare, called Corporate Welfare that's about cronyism. So obviously there's increasing awareness and concern with this sort of phenomenon. So what exactly is cronyism, right? What are some ways that government helps big business which would give rise, you know, legitimize the kinds of concerns that people like Rothbard had in the 1960s. So in fact, there are lots of subsidies, direct subsidies and indirect subsidies that are given to politically connected firms by the state. Right, so, you know, there are direct subsidies. Goldman Sachs and other large investment banks function as so-called primary dealers in New York City. I'm not sure if other professors in talking about Austrian business cycle theory went over this point, when we talk about, we say, well, the Fed buys and sells securities through open market operations. Fed wants to increase the money supply, right? They, or decrease the money supply, they buy and sell treasury bonds. Well, you and I can't go and buy those treasury bonds from the Fed. Okay, there's a small number of New York investment banks, the so-called primary dealers. They're the ones who actually buy and sell directly with the Fed. Then eventually, then they can trade with the riffraff, people like you and me, right? But, you know, we talk about cantillon effects. Who gets the money first? Well, it's Goldman Sachs and the other big investment banks, the primary dealers. They get the new money first, like, you know, that exact moment, right?  So, some people consider Goldman Sachs like a fourth branch of the US federal government. We've already done a fair amount of Elon Musk bashing this week, so I don't need to add on to that, but certainly Elon Musk is happy to take whatever kind of electricity subsidies, alternative fuel subsidies, and whatever other kinds of subsidies he can get his hand on. But, you know, there are also, you know, indirect subsidies, cases where it's a little bit less obvious, like the US Export-Import Bank, right? Which is allegedly, ostensibly, a US government agency that promotes trade. Okay, well, that sounds good. I think it's great for the US to have more trade with, you know, countries around the world. But of course, what in fact this means is the Ex-Im Bank gives taxpayers subsidized loans to governments and companies in other countries, you know, for one purpose, namely to buy American-made products. And not just any American-made products, but Boeing jets or caterpillar construction machines or GE engines and so forth. So the Export-Import Bank is basically just a subsidy machine for these large US companies that are on the list of preferred US firms. Right, I mean, you understand this is how foreign aid works.    No, I mean, most of US foreign aid is taxpayer money going to the dictator of that country so he can buy some 747s for the state airline. Okay, so clearly these kinds of firms are major beneficiaries of the US taxpayer. And, you know, these firms don't get as much blame as they should for being cronies. And of course they're extremely well connected. There was a famous influential US senator in the 1970s named Scoop Jackson from the state of Washington. He's known, kind of infamous among foreign policy experts because most of the, a lot of the really terrible neoconservatives like John Bolton and Richard Pearl, these guys were his kind of staffers in the 1970s. But he was colloquially known in Washington as the senator from Boeing. Now there are a lot of sort of indirect, there are a lot of government actions that provide indirect subsidies to certain firms, politically corrected firms, named often through the form of what we call raising rival's costs, it's a bit of a tongue twister. Government action often protects incumbent firms, protects large successful firms by making it more costly for newer or younger firms to enter the market and compete with them. So, you know, think about tariffs and quotas. If Trump is successful, you know, I just think just this morning he announced a new set of proposed tariffs on Chinese exports to the US, right? So, if you're a domestic American steel producer and the federal government puts a 50% tariff on imported steel from China or from India or whatever, that obviously gives a benefit to incumbent steel producers, right? It makes it harder for a new steel producer to come into the market, quotas on imports and so forth. But also in a less obvious way, a lot of health, safety and environmental rules also form, they function as a kind of protection for incumbents. So, you notice that, you know, in the United States over the last 20 years, almost all private organizations by law, organizations by law are required to meet certain requirements, for example, access for people with disabilities. So, you see a certain number of parking spaces reserved for those with a handicap tag. You have ramps and elevators and so forth. And a lot of this was from a piece of legislation passed during the 1990s, during the administration of George H.W. Bush, called the Americans with Disabilities Act. And this mandated that public and private establishments make their facilities accessible to people with physical disabilities. Okay, well, I mean, who could argue with that, right? If you look at the sort of congressional record and you look at lobbying expenditures, it turns out that as you would expect, lobbying groups that represent small enterprise lobbied against making these requirements mandatory. They said, well, look, if we can do that, we certainly want to do that for our customers. We want to have as many customers as we can. We want to be able to have the best employees that we can. So, yeah, we want to make all our facilities accessible, but it's very expensive to do that, right? And some of us can't afford it. And if you require us to meet these particular restrictions, we're not gonna be able to open, we're not gonna be able to stay in business. So, these kinds of requirements, just like environmental quality requirements or safety requirements, make it more costly for business to operate. So, no company wants higher costs, right? So naturally you would expect all businesses to be, to have been lobbying heavily against the Americans with Disabilities Act. Guess what? Lobby groups representing the largest companies in America all lobbied very heavily in favor of the Americans with Disabilities Act. They were begging the government to do something to increase their costs. You said, well, that doesn't make any sense. Doesn't that hurt their profits? Yeah, I mean, in the short run, but in the long run what it does is it protects their position because Wal-Mart can easily afford to design the parking lot in a certain way to make sure there are no steps as you enter the store. That's easy for Wal-Mart to do. And of course, Wal-Mart has, Wal-Mart Corporation has hundreds, maybe thousands of attorneys and compliance officers and all sorts of folks who specialize in understanding the regulations and making sure the firm is in compliance with the regulations. Mom and pop stores don't have that. Mom and pop entrepreneurs, they can't afford to build a ramp instead of stairs. They can't afford to repave their parking lot. They don't have a lawyer or retainer who can help them decipher the latest requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act. So large companies, surprisingly, or at first glance it's surprising, often lobby for more regulation, for stricter government requirements on disclosure and so forth because they know they can afford it and their smaller newer rivals cannot afford it. The economist Bruce Benson famously articulated this point with his great metaphor of the bootlegger and Baptist coalition. So I don't know if you've read Bruce Yandle's writings on bootlegger and Baptist coalitions. Yandle points out that these kind of regulations that raise rivals costs are much more likely to be enacted. Big companies are much more likely to get these kinds of benefits when they can sort of hide behind some more benevolent sounding interest. His metaphor with bootleggers and Baptists, he's talking about the prohibition era in the 1920s. Yandle says, look, there were two groups who were in favor of alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. One group that you could call Baptist, quote unquote, he doesn't mean literal members of the Baptist faith, but he means people who believed, said that alcohol should be illegal because it's immoral and unhealthy and it's bad for people, it's bad for society. And indeed prohibition was publicly championed by different so-called temperance groups that argued that public and private drunkenness was a serious health concern and people were not showing up for work and men in particular were not being good husbands and fathers because they were drunk all the time and so if we ban alcohol, that will lead to a more virtuous and more prosperous and better society. Of course, there was another group that was in favor of alcohol prohibition, right? Namely those who make a lot of money from selling illegal booze, right? The Alcapones and so forth, they love prohibition. That's what enabled them to grow their empires, right? Just as nowadays, what sorts of groups most strongly oppose drug legalization? Well, there are groups who say, oh, well, marijuana is harmful, we were talking about medical marijuana last night. There are people who say marijuana is harmful, it's a gateway drug, it has all these negative effects on society, but of course the drug cartels are terrified at the idea of ending drug prohibition, right, because that would put a huge dent in their profits. But of course, Al Capone couldn't go on television or radio as it was in the 1920s and say, okay, everybody, we really need to keep prohibition in place because I'm making a blank load of money off of it, and if you ever repeal prohibition, that's gonna be bad for me. He can't say that, he can't do that publicly, but he doesn't have to if he can hide behind some other group, which is making the argument on his behalf but for different reasons, right? So the claim is not that these two groups are sort of explicitly working together, but that they're both sort of lobbying for the same thing, the so-called Baptist group is lobbying publicly, publicly advocating some policy. The so-called bootleger group is working behind the scenes to get the same policy enacted. You see this today with a lot of environmental legislation. So you have the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and so on talking about greenhouse gases and climate change and the need for electric cars and so forth, but then you also have Elon Musk, working behind the scenes to get stricter regulations on fossil fuels. You have incumbent producers who are trying to get factories who want tight emissions requirements on new construction and so forth. So when you have a bootleger and Baptist coalition, you're more likely to see regulation that is sold to the public as something that benefits society at large, but is really benefiting certain special interests. So am I concluding that the sort of new left historians of the 1960s, sort of the Rothbard of the 1960s had it right that in our society today in 2018, most large businesses should be regarded with some suspicion because they probably got big from special government privilege. Well, not so fast, right? Government also does a lot of things to help small firms, right? There's a lot of government policies that subsidize small firms and penalize large firms. Antitrust is an obvious example. Small firms are generally not subject to antitrust scrutiny because no one's paying any attention, no one notices. You might have heard that just this week, Google got hit with a huge fine, I think it was a $5 billion fine from the European Union Competition Authority for allegedly, it's very similar to the case that was made against Microsoft in the 1990s. The claim is that anybody who buys an Android handset, a mobile phone with Android, is sort of forced to use Google services, Google Chrome and Gmail and so forth, and that doesn't give providers of rival browsers, Firefox or, I don't know if they make Microsoft Edge for mobile or whatever the other browsers operate, you might be interested in, that those companies are hurt because Google is sort of pre-installing various Google services on its devices and that's an unfair exploitation of Google's market power in the handheld market.  Small firms can do lots of these things without drawing any, they sort of fly under the radar screen, so to speak but once you reach a certain size, then the government starts paying attention and it's a well-known in the history of Silicon Valley that until about the mid-1990s, U.S. technology companies were pretty apolitical. They didn't make, they didn't contribute to politicians' campaigns, they didn't do much lobbying and really, politicians didn't know much about them. Politicians didn't understand the internet when it first came into existence. Who was the guy who talked about, it's a network of tubes or whatever. Some old congressperson had no idea what the internet even was but as the commercial internet grew and became what it is today. Now, of course, government officials see Silicon Valley is a gigantic cash cow waiting to be milked. That actually leads me to another example or the example of what Fred McChesney, a very good economist who died last year called Rent Extraction. McChesney wrote a book called Money for Nothing on this phenomenon and what he meant by Rent Extraction was the phenomenon of regulators, elected officials, bureaucrats and so forth.  We are paying attention to you. Boy, wouldn't it be terrible if something bad happened to your business or your industry like we shut it down? By the way, my PayPal address is whatever. I'll be running for office next year and certainly would appreciate your support. If you remember during the 2016 presidential campaign, there was a lot of criticism of Hillary Clinton, how much money she made before she started running for president when she sat down for the Senate. Speaking fees, Hillary Clinton was making billions, giving talks to Citibank and Goldman Sachs and so forth, so Bernie Sanders and his supporters really hit her hard during the primaries and even Trump talked about Clinton being in the pocket of Wall Street and so forth. Bill Clinton makes tens of millions of dollars every year in speaking fees.  I've never had the privilege of seeing it in person but they're not that good. She's no Andrew Napolitano as an engaging storyteller and she's got a clunky and she's got this flat monotone voice and if she tries to tell a joke or laugh, you can tell that she's a robot, right? Why is Citibank paying her $500,000 for a 20 minute speech or a 30 minute speech? What knowledge could they possibly extract about the financial sector from this? Eventually I realized, no, it's a form of, these are kind of, it's kind of protection money, right? So these large politically connected firms were thinking, okay, Mrs. Clinton, Senator Clinton is very likely to be president in the future. Bill Clinton is very likely to be not only an ex-president but a first gentleman or the first gentleman or whatever. These are people who are gonna be in position to help us a lot or hurt us a lot. Let's make sure that they are in our pocket. Let's make sure they are friendly to us. So yeah, we pay them an amount that's way above their discounted marginal revenue product to come and give a talk to our executives. It's a kind of extortion racket. That's the way that McChesney describes it and I think that's a useful metaphor for understanding it. I was looking recently at some data on Silicon Valley as I mentioned before. After the Microsoft Antitrust case in the mid-90s, Microsoft and other tech firms suddenly started making very large campaign contributions to elected officials nationwide. Gee, I wonder why, okay? Another interesting factoid is if you look at campaign contributions by party made by U.S. companies, and I imagine this is true in other countries as well, large U.S. companies give almost equally to Democratic and Republican candidates. Even in the same race, they give the maximum amount to this person running for Senate and they give the same amount to the opponent running for Senate, for the same Senate seat. You think, well, it can't be ideology, like we favor these policies, we wanna make sure the person who also favors those policies gets elected because then why are they given to the other candidate? Well, it looks like protection money, right? Whoever wins, the winner is somebody who appreciates what we have done for them in the past. Okay. Another set of policies that help small firms is disclosure requirements. So after the financial crisis, the Sarbanes-Oxley, sorry, after the corporate scandals of the early 2000s with Enron and WorldCom and other companies that were discovered to have misreported their earnings, there was a series of reforms designed to impose stricter reporting requirements on publicly traded firms. So now it's the case that CEOs and CFOs can be held personally liable for misstatements, deliberate misstatements or fraudulent information that's on their public disclosures, their 10K and their annual report and so forth. And again, these were reforms that were passed in the wake of these corporate reporting scandals. Well, one of the predictable effects of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and one that we can now see in the data is that far fewer firms are going public, having an IPO and being listed on the stock exchange. If you're a privately held company, you don't have to meet these disclosure requirements. But if you wanna trade on the New York Stock Exchange or you want your stock to trade on the NASDAQ, then you have to disclose all this information to the Securities and Exchange Commission. But if access to public capital markets, if access to equity from the stock market is a requirement or a useful ingredient for growth, but becoming publicly listed means you have to disclose all this information to the government and you could be personally liable for any mistakes, that simply increases the cost of getting big, right? So many more companies will choose to say small than they otherwise would so they can avoid having to meet these kind of disclosure requirements. And we talk about Elon Musk.  I mean, Tesla is a large company by market value and so SpaceX is other enterprises are large, although if you look at sales revenue, they're of course very small. But Elon Musk started out as a much smaller, his venture started out small. And of course, there are lots of subsidized programs for small ventures, especially in the technology sector. So many countries, including the United States, have a government agency responsible for doing small business lending. So the US Small Business Administration gives taxpayers subsidized loans to startup companies, to smaller companies, companies meeting certain requirements. There are all kinds of development grants for entrepreneurs, taxpayers subsidize business incubators and accelerators and other organizations that are designed to help certain kinds of companies. And if you think about it, interventionism per se, right, makes the market economy work less well than it otherwise would, right? So you can look at a whole host of government interventions that kind of retard the division of labor, impose barriers on trade and so forth, it's having us kind of an aggregate net harm on entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship, right? So trade barriers, war, state control of education and so forth all make firms less productive than they otherwise would be, right? And if you assume that entrepreneurs established enterprises and those entrepreneurs were skilled over time, will develop more expertise, they'll be able to accumulate more capital, they'll be able to hire the best workers and so forth, well in the mixed economy that process doesn't work as well because our economy is way below potential because of all the features of what means is called the hampered market economy. So just the mixed economy per se imposes a kind of indirect tax or cost on productivity which hurts large companies that through economies of scale and learning by doing might otherwise be a lot larger than they currently are, okay? Let me just make a few brief remarks before we wrap up about the corporate form specifically, right? So I've just been talking about large companies and with a few exceptions like Sarbanes-Oxley, not specifically about corporations versus non-corporations but that tends to be a big issue in many libertarian circles. There's sort of a view that you see in some of the free market literature that yeah, maybe it's fine for companies to be big but the corporation per se is kind of suspect because corporations are established by law and when you are established as a corporation you get limited liability for certain kinds of harms that are done by the firm and it is held by some people that this is kind of itself an artificial state privilege that limited liability is a grant from the state and that corporations per se get a kind of state benefit from being incorporated and being held to limited liability.  Roderick's point was that in a truly free market we really wouldn't have any big companies. We'd have sort of mom and pops and worker owned cooperatives and all kinds of other kind of village enterprise and so forth and I was challenging Roderick on that point, you can Google this and find it but just to summarize a couple of the points that I made there, I mean, certainly it's true that the corporate form of organization does provide certain kinds of organizational benefits otherwise why would anybody do it, right? So there's certainly some tax benefits to incorporating, right? If the corporate tax rate is lower than the personal tax rate that you might pay if your enterprise were organized in a different way then it makes sense for you to incorporate and I'm certainly in favor of individuals and firms paying lower taxes. What about limited liability? So I think it's important to distinguish here among two different types of limited liability. So limited liability can apply either to relationships between the firm and its creditors or relationships between the firms and individuals who might be harmed by the firm through some kind of a tort. So the creditor issue is easy to solve, right? If by limited liability we mean that I have a venture I incorporate as a limited liability company. If my firm goes bankrupt, then the assets will be partitioned off and sold to the bank or debt holders or other people who have lent me money. So limited liability means that my creditors can seize all the assets of the venture if the venture fails and I don't make my debt payments but they can't come after my house.  They can only retrieve, they can only recover the assets of the firm not my personal assets. Well, is that good or bad? Well, I mean, from a market-oriented point of view, who knows? I mean, that's something that the market would have to sort out on its own. In other words, in a purely free economy, my conjecture is entrepreneurs would go to the debt markets then and say, look, I wanna borrow money from you. And the lender would say, okay, well, I've got two different kinds of contracts that we can discuss. If you'll agree that if your venture goes south, I can come get your house, then I'll lend you money at 6%. But if you wanna sign this other kind of contract where I can only get the assets of the venture and not your house, yeah, I can do that, but then it's gonna cost you 8%. Then I can decide which of those arrangements I prefer. We can negotiate, we can come up with any kind of liability arrangement that suits us both. So the point is there's no illegitimate harm done by creditors from the fact that they can't go after the entrepreneur's personal assets in the event of failure if they knew and contracted for that ex-ante, right? The more tricky issue is the tort one. You know, if a Domino's pizza driver hits somebody's car or hits a pedestrian and puts them in the hospital, should Domino's shareholders be liable for paying the hospital bills, right? So people who claim that limited liability is sort of an illicit grant of privilege will argue that, well, no, in a purely free society, if you own a company, you're responsible for what your employees do. And it's not fair that the person who was hit by the Domino's pizza driver cannot sue Domino's shareholders. That's an illicit privilege to shareholders and it makes more firms become corporations than otherwise would be the case in a free market and let's firms become bigger than the otherwise would and so forth. I don't think that argument is correct. And here's why. It assumes that in the absence of government intervention, the default legal rule, you know, the legal rule under the libertarian code or whatever, would be that the owner of an enterprise is legally liable for any harm done by any employee or contractor. Why should it be that, right? I mean, in the common law, that's the notion of what they call vicarious liability. When are you vicariously liable for something that someone else does? And the common law rule has always been, it depends on the circumstances, right? If a shareholder or the owner of Domino's, you know, said, I say to Christian, hey, go take this pizza to Lou Rockwell, drive as fast as you can, go through red lights. You know, if you hit somebody, don't stop, keep on going and he's following that direct order, then yeah, the victim of the accident could have a legal case against me for harm. But if I say Christian, you know, here's an employment contract, deliver pizzas, don't speed, don't run through any red lights and he speeds and runs through a red light. Well, that's not his, I'm not liable for that act, just I wouldn't be liable if he punched somebody in the face. I mean, it's not obvious that the employer or the owner should be liable for torts committed by employees. It's sort of a complex legal and economic issue, but it's by no means obvious that in the absence of government intervention, the legal rule would be unlimited liability. For torts, right, it makes more sense that some kind of limited liability probably would be established in tort cases under this sort of libertarian legal code, which is exactly what we saw under the common law. So I'm a little bit over my time here. So the conclusion is, does government help big business? Yes, but it helps small business too. Government policy has a lot of effects, diverse, complex effects on firm size and how firms are organized and firm strategy and performance, corporations per se benefit from the state, sure, but they're also harmed as well. And limited liability is not obviously an artificial state privilege. So people say to me, well, what would the economy look like in a purely free society? Would firms be bigger or smaller? My answer is, I don't know, but let's give it a try and find out.


board? I do. I have a couple questions Michelle. So you mentioned it is only a pilot program so how many schools or at what schools would it be at or are all? It's at every middle and high school. Okay great and that includes our dependent charger schools? For their middle school students yes for their elementary students so it would be available for their sixth to eighth grade students. Got it. How about our Miss Deckel students? Is there anything that we're doing to address that need? So I mean probably what I would recommend them especially at the high school is to use the pupils tutors and so to use our in-person tutors the company doesn't provide supports in Miss Deckelbackel I mean really our Miss Deckelbackel students are really brilliant because they are usually trilingual they usually are learning English as well and then because of the environment that they're in they know Spanish as well and then Miss Deckelbackel but what I would say is I would really encourage them to access the learning hubs and go and get the support from the UCSC tutors and the pupils tutors. So they do have someone we do have something in place in case they need access to someone who speaks Miss Deckelbackel. The unfortunate pieces the learning hubs will only be open most likely until about 5.30 versus this is 24.7 so they still would be able to do it but they would have to receive that support in English or Spanish. Thank you. Trustee Disciple did you have a comment or question? No I don't think so. Okay. Did she have a question? Can I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve and I'll second which I do have one question. Okay. How will we know if this program is working like the efficacy so we'll be able to track the students and according to the various assessments that we have so we'll be looking at specifically DNF rates so grades and we'll also be looking at their map scores to see how they're doing and how they're progressing and whether or not they're accessing it and how well they're accessing it there's a data dashboard that will make sure and track so that we can see the number of hours and we'll definitely be providing an update for you especially if we come back and decide to expand the program we will provide that update for you. Okay. I think our students are just kind of burned out of online learning kind of platforms and I'll be interested to see how well this works. I'm just speaking about my own daughter who's a junior in college she's just done with online. Yeah I would say they definitely are done with classes being online we are still seeing students that are accessing these type of supports but we're doing a pilot so it's really when you think about it it's 16 over 16 schools there's only a thousand licenses so it's really not a large amount for each school. Yeah I saw that it's like 45,000 dollars total or something yeah. Okay so you have first and second. Hi. Hi. We'll move on to our consent agenda which is our routine items do we have any public speakers to the consent agenda? None. Are there any items that are I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda with deferring item 11.13 and 11.14. I'll second again with gratitude to the donations that have come in that we've received for the LaGasi kitchen thank you to the donors. I think that my questions really with regards to both of these and looking at the backup on it I believe if I recall correctly these are both just going through until December correct? 2021 and I know we've been doing this I mean pretty much this whole year calendar year meaning not academic year right? I just had to say I find it really interesting that as a public K-12 institution that we're promoting spending money on promoting ourselves it's a very unique sort of circumstance I mean we you know there's a public educational system in every community within the state of California and the country right it's required to provide a free public K-12 education regardless of immigration status right so I mean I also have the sometimes fortune of you know traveling a lot throughout the state with the nature of my work and I have to say I don't see other school districts I mean out of you know over a thousand school districts in the state public school districts that really do this so I'm just really wanting to see what I mean are we really seeing a benefit from doing this and what is that yeah so I don't think that it's just about publicizing that we're a school district and publicizing about our programs although we do that as well we actually talk about many things on there so it can be everything from kinder enrollment which is related to enrollment to vaccines that we're promoting we're promoting enrollment to vaccines that we're providing we do a whole gamut it really is dependent on what we're doing so we did something on graduations prior so when we were going to have graduations the requirements of graduations is something that we put out there I actually would beg to differ that other school districts are not doing this some school districts I mean they are larger than us even have their own TV channel and so they have people in house that are doing this but for example and it's just an adorable but it's kind of funny so we have one of through some of these 32nd things that are done for us we have placed it like at the Green Valley Cinemas and I have students when I'm in the schools that will say to me I saw you I saw you at the cinema and when they first started telling me that I thought they were talking about me personally and I was like oh I didn't I wasn't at the movies they're like no I saw you on the screen so we got such a great response from the English version that's why we did the Spanish version which is this one but it also is it's not just for promotion it is for displaying of information just like D-lac just this last Tuesday they asked for us to continue to do more education and information about the vaccines that we did one on cares and what does cares mean right connect accelerate recover and rich succeed and so I do think that it's important I've had parents that have said that like at the trunk or treat people are like you're Dr. Rodriguez I've seen you on the video so people are learning about what we're doing in the system and I think that that's a good thing for it especially since it's a pretty nominal amount I mean it's $3,780 and that's just to continue until the end of December from now through June through June this goes from December through the end of June and it is actually wonderful if I may add Dr. Rodriguez it is important because there is a lot of competition we are we are right now also promoting the hiring hiring for PVUSD we need there's shortage everywhere and that is one way of getting the word out there this is with Univision we have had a a contract with Telemundo and we know that Univision is a second TV channel that is watched by our families the most in this area so they gave us a very good rate to start advertising with them and we are doing the same the same ad right now the one that is running is about hiring for various employment including substitute teachers and classified staff it is the one you may have seen where I was at a bus yard with staff around and then we were in the classroom as well so I be fine with supporting I just wanted some clarification also maybe if it is brought back again for renewal and not just whether it is in the Spanish version or the English version and or it is not a differentiation between that because yes I absolutely believe whatever we are doing in English we should be doing in Spanish and what we are doing in Spanish we should be doing in English but what are we seeing of the benefits what are the results that is just a common wanting to know that there is a result and a benefit coming from it not that we are just spending it even though it is a pretty nominal amount but thank you I just want to add that this is also KSW we also run that in English so with that I will make a motion to approve item 11.13 second first second all those in favor aye any opposed motion carries 601 and item 11.14 I will make a motion to approve can I get a second second all those in favor aye motion carries 601 and we will have our item 14.1 action report on closed session are there any items to report from closed session there is multiple so so under item closed session item 2.1 I move to approve the certificated personnel report as presented by the district administration on November 17, 2021 with 13 for additional action items I've got a first can I get a second a second all those in favor aye any opposed motion carries 601 under item closed session item one abstention 501 under closed session item 2.2 I move to approve the certificated personnel report as presented by the district administration on November 17, 2021 with 13 and 10 additional action items can I get a second a second all those in favor aye any opposed trustee so 501 all right under item we do have one announcement district is pleased to announce the selection of Stephanie as a new coordinator of English language services Stephanie has been serving students since 2002 as a teacher administrator and bilingual coordinator she has also been a bilingual instructor working with English learners in a priority of capacities she obtained her bachelor's of science degree in education from the University of Wisconsin she has a master's in education from the same institution she obtained a second master's degree in educational leadership from Marianne University she holds a Wisconsin and Illinois administrative credential a Wisconsin and Illinois teaching credential and a California teaching credential with a B-clad she has started in California, Wisconsin, Illinois, and the Galapagos and Ecuador Ms. Bumplin brings her 19-plus years in the role of coordinator we are proud to welcome this highly accomplished educator to her new administrative role now under item 2.2 the board voted with a 403 vote to approve the settlement agreement with CSEA chapter 132 for case number as FCE 3433e and under item 2.6 special education settlement for a student the board voted with a final compromise and release agreement for a special services student thank you our next meeting will be on December 8th, 2021 and with that the meeting is adjourned at 10.13


Held up, back it comes to Jordan Clark in the penalty area. He teases one in, free head of a John, where on earth is the market? Nine minutes in, Luton Town head themselves in front. And there wasn't a defender in sight. Yeah, I'm not sure what was going on there. I think Smidley's having words with the centre halves. He could miss, I mean, there's so much. There was no three or four yards either side of him. Luton's side for the cherry, it's just over half way. Sinistera and Solanke linking up. Solanke did well, led into his man, needs him off it. And here's Sinistera, into the penalty area with an angle to shoot. In the end he went for the near post and Kaminsky repelled the danger. Back to Christie to the left-hand side and Watara onto his right foot. Donga Watara swings one towards goal, with his right foot. And in the end it's curled off target. Yeah, good attacking work down the left-hand side again. Gained the shot, just over the crock well. Back about the yard, just over the crossbar. Trying to kill it in on the far post. Sinistera right to go himself in the previous phase. Willow to go for the near post and see it blocked by the goalkeeper. It wasn't much angle to play with with his left foot. Loads of room for Alex Scott on half-way here, right at the centre circle. Red by Lewis Cook. Alex Scott travelling, 30 yards from goal. Sees it to the left and now Sinistera, room to get it out of his feet. Right footed effort from Sinistera, low towards the near post. It's comfortably saved in the end by Kaminsky. Yeah, he did a lot more power. And Alex Scott is fuming with him. Cos he ran right round the back of him, looking for a little slip in. No. There's a lot of goal to shoot at. They do get their back three pretty high at the pitch as well, Luke. I've been impressed with the goalkeeper on that fact as well. He's comforted everything that's gone behind us. That's a good ball in behind. Here's Alfie Doughty inside left-channel, squares it across the box and it's 2-0 to Luton. As Obele turns it into the back post. And again, you simply have to wonder what is going on with Bournemouth defending. Doughty had the freedom. Doughty sit left side of the penalty area, slid it across the six-yard box. Obele piled in, knocked it into the net, and 31 minutes gone for the second game in succession, Bournemouth a 2-0 down at home to a team in the bottom three. So, Lewis Cook with an out-swing corner. We don't see these very often in the cherries. I mentioned that before. Starrer's free, takes an inflection, spun up towards the back post where Solanki couldn't quite get there, and it'll be another corner to the cherries on the left-hand side. The ball does have a habit of landing at Starrer, doesn't it, from corners? From the right, two behind. Christie into the six-yard line. There's Burke with the free-head of the cue, that one away for Luton, unchallenged. Loose ball picked up by Scott. Now Lewis Cook, he's going to go for goal. Lewis Cook, that's on target, punched away in front of his chest by Kaminsky, and he swings one in towards the back post where Christie's there, but Christie was easily out-muscled and out-strengthed there by Ross Barkley, and it goes behind for a goal, kicked to Luton. And now Morris out to the right-hand side of Kevore, and Luton getting white shirts up in support here. Barkley's charging on ahead of Kevore if he sees him. He spots him now. Ross Barkley into the penalty of Reviton, blasted into the back of the net. It is 3-0 to first half here at the Vitality Stadium. If they came to do it for Tom Lockyer, they're absolutely doing their job. It is Bournemouth Hill, Luton down 3. Well, we all didn't see this one coming. That finished by Barkley. Absolutely immaculate. I'm thinking the only place he can beat the keeper is high. Cook whips it in towards the near post. Guess who? He heads it away again on the edge of the 6-yard line, cleared out to the left-hand side. Back comes to Ryan Christie, 40 yards out, trying to get the referee out of the way. Comes back to Tavinear to shoot. Well, Manchester United player Chong breaks in the box. Solanki was being held. He's still going through. Oh, that's so sensational. Centre forward play for Dominic Solanki. Who was being held then rolled the centre back down the penalty spot and chipped it over the advancing goalkeeper. He scored in the original fixture, Dominic Solanki. That one was wiped out. This one counts. 50 minutes gone. Bournemouth immediately give themselves a leg-up back into the game. Well, that's just what we needed. Dominic absolutely superb. Really strong on the ball, holding people off, just waiting for his moment to get a little clip around the corner and finish it with rail from. When his goal was chalked off the handball, and it's precisely what Bournemouth needed. And here goes Tavinear storming through the centre circle to the right-hand side. It goes to Antoine Semenio, bearing down on the penalty area onto his left foot. Semenio! Oh, that is a sensational shot, which I think has just glanced the top of the bar from Antoine Semenio. Oh, dear me. I knew he was going to come inside. I was just waiting for him to drop the shoulder. Just couldn't get enough care of on it towards the goal. As Lewis Cook from the left-hand side prepares to deliver this corner for Bournemouth in front of them north-standing to the near post. Victor Morsegoal cleared off the line.  Referee says no. Then he says yes! The Cherries suffer the goal line right against them on Saturday. Today the Referees watch judges in the Cherries favour. Blixty two minutes gone. It's form of two, Luton Town three. All right, it's quite incredible for once that we do get a decision. And he's scored the goal. It's Zabba, goal bouncing round with the Referees watch, doesn't tell a lie. That's right. Christie swings across through the ball into the looser space and Semenio again. And again the red and black shirts are absolutely charging forward to join him. Semenio in the box onto his left. Left foot it is, and this time it's not the far post he goes for. Here, loads of power, goal keeping no chance. Absolutely unbelievable. Metara over the halfway line down this left-hand side for the Cherries. BBC Radio solo. Here's Metara again, moving forward towards Solanke. Ounel wants it laid off! Ounel gets it laid off! Right in the D centre position on his right foot and didn't have the power or direction to beat Kaminsky. He didn't catch it, did he? In the last four midweek games the Cherries are playing in the Premier League. They've taken ten points. They have performed well under the lights and they might still have a chance at making it three. Semenio playing in behind here. Rupert and Semenio! He dropped the ball off. He was aiming for the space. He kept running and it was just... Could they get the ball to him and he did. Has he dealt with it? That was some strike. Would you run for it? Absolutely unbelievable.


It's better to be single with standards than losing yourself for the sake of someone else. Any relationship that asks you to abandon yourself to keep then is not a relationship that's worth having.


So here's my agenda for today. We'll start off from just talking about what is CryptoEconLab and its network, what are we set up to do. I hope after this talk people have a good idea of what our vision are, what are different areas that we're working on. And then we talk about the key economic policy on Filecoin so that we all have a baseline understanding of how Filecoin works before the rest of the talk today. And then lastly, I will give an update on the state of the Filecoin network. And also we talk about the other future CryptoEcon days. Cool, before we start, just a bit of a history lesson. Fun fact, much of Filecoin's CryptoEcon was actually simulated in Austin before we launched. So super glad to be back here again in Austin. Cool, let's dive in. So at CryptoEconLab we kind of think about all the crypto projects and blockchain as the economic network. So we kind of define this process of design, validation, deployment, and governance. So I need to figure out, oh, how should I design this? How do I know my design is good? And once we design it, how do we deploy it? And after we deploy it, our job is not done. We continue to analyze, do analytics, and try to understand how we govern such a living system. And we aspire to be the industry leader, industry defining leader in this whole process. And our vision is really to build an end to NR&D lab that starts from research, protocol, and then to product and ecosystem. And people talk about CryptoEcon a lot. This diagram here really illustrates the interdisciplinary nature of the space. And it also takes part in our team culture. So if all these things speak to you, reach out to us. We can talk more during the break or after our presentations. And so this is another illustration of this whole process. So we have upstream research, more general incentive, all the way to with upcoming protocol, new incentive, and then the protocol governance, and then analytics and ecosystem. We do believe that the success of the ecosystem is so vital to the success of the economy. So another illustration here, more like a bird's eye wheel. We work with different upstream organization. And then we also actively participate in the ecosystem. And then given this kind of scope, end to NR&D, we are hiring across the board for different roles, research, product, engineering, anything. And if there's anything that doesn't fit your role, just reach out to us. And then I'm sure we can define something. I think there's enough idea space, capital, and things for everyone to work on in our ecosystem. And cool. So now I want to talk a bit more about the two main mandate or two main areas of focus of our lab. One is more on the research analytics and governance side, which would make up, I think, the first half of today's talk. Each of the speaker would go more in depth. And then the second part would be more on the business and application that can get built on the Valkuan ecosystem. So on the research and data-driven governance side, a lot of that really is that no one can really predict the future. But we can apply some kind of scientific method to try and understand the system dynamics and try to understand the incentive forces that are pushing the system. So then we can have some kind of reasonable understanding of what the trajectory might be. And so we kind of define this process of analytics and monitoring so that we know what's going on, we get frequent feedback. And then if there's new question, we can do modeling and we do similar project forward. And then to kind of really affect all those changes, we rely on the FIP process, which similar to EIP process on Ethereum, which stands for Filecoin Improvement Protocol. And this is really iterative. And there are many dimensions to the data on Filecoin, given it's a complex economy. We also talk about what is Filecoin in the moment. So just some example of the stuff that we work on on the analytics side. We look at protocol level. So what about the gas? What about the blocks? And are we like, is everything looking healthy more so from a blockchain protocol layer? Then we also look at the macro economy. How is the Filecoin economy doing today? There's also analytics in that aspect. And what about the different active behaviors? What's the risk tolerance level? And what is like all this implied kind of perception of the system? Is everybody super bullish about the Filecoin network? And then we also look into the value of flows from your token transfer to who did you make deals with, and so on and so forth, and data flows as well. And then we also work on FIP, which we mentioned earlier. So this covers three different aspects. It could be ideation, where like, oh, we want to make some changes to the protocol. What are some new FIP or new changes that we can introduce? And then from there, we can propose that change, and then we go through the governance process. Or it could be like somebody came up to us because anybody can propose a FIP in most of the Web3 ecosystem. But sometimes, like a similarly innocent software optimization or change will carry lots of economic impact. So we get caught in pretty often as a group to try to understand, oh, what is the economic impact of this particular change? And then we also work on the new protocol design incentive. That's one of the most exciting aspects of working at PL, CryptoEcon, because there are always new fundamental cryptography, the ship of the systems, consensus research, and then it all requires some kind of CryptoEcon analysis. So we talk about scaling Filecoin. This is a very common problem across Web3. What if your block space increases by 1,000x? How would that change your economic incentive on the economy? We have a talk about that later today. And what about, so Filecoin Storage Network, what about Retrieval? What about computer data? What about adding more programmability? Would that create any issues? Or can we design any new incentive to really stimulate the economy? And then lastly, we really believe in transparent and honest communication. A lot of our work would be public on GitHub, on Notion. You guys can check them out as well. And then on top of that, I think Filecoin is a later on protocol. We talk more about that. But we really believe in success of the ecosystem as an extension of the economics. So in our group, we also spend lots of time thinking about, well, some of the new opportunities, a new part of market fit on the Filecoin ecosystem and even beyond. But we have our own approach in how we think about this problem. I think it's very common in most of startup world about the vision, the storytelling. This is what we want to achieve in the next X, Y, Z years. Everybody agree. That's a grand vision. But we all know startup is hard. Ideas is worthless. It's very about execution. So our approach really is we do know where the frontier of the protocol is. We do know where we are right now. That's where the part of market fit is. That's where all the participants are participating for. And then from there, we see there's a gap. So can we find all these new areas, new opportunities, just at the fringes of the protocol? And then how can we find adoption in part of market fit? How can we validate our ideas as quickly as we can and as cheaply as we can as well, such that we can move along the frontier and go to the grand vision? So there are many different areas here that we are exploring within our group and network. We don't constrain ourselves to just CryptoEconLab. We think of it as a CryptoEconLab and its network. So if you're watching this talk, if you're here or remotely, if you're interested in collaborating with us, feel free to reach out. But these are some of the possible ideas, possible areas that we are exploring. And then in the second half of today's session, you see more of our collaborators presenting their different research and project as well. So some of these include like differentiate storage services, which is talking about Ethereum migrating their storage states. That could be a business on the table already. There's novel data marketplaces, retrieval markets and different layer twos on Filecoin, self-service and user-generated analytics. As we saw earlier, there's a ton of data on Filecoin and we see more example down the line as well. Financing and lending, NFTs and other token structures, data dials, somebody just raised lots of money as well in the newsletter today on the data dot concept. But I think in the Filecoin ecosystem, if you go close to the protocol, there are many part of PMF and adoption opportunity that you can really build lots of traction before you even attract any venture investment. And I want to call one more thing. FVM is EVM compatible user defined smart contract coming on the Filecoin, right? A lot of our ecosystem are betting on like FVM like actually enabling lots of this new application to be built. But our take really is like FVM shouldn't be the bottleneck, that's just a technology, right? Like you can always find a way around it and then like build something that works and then you build the traction and build the adoption. Once you have that when FVM comes online, you will just be an easy migration. And then also branding, marketing and also like how do we really build that adoption really matters a lot. Cool, so with that in mind, this is kind of like the vision for our lab, our culture and then like what we have been working on, the tool main track, research and also application and businesses on top of the Filecoin network. So now we're going to talk about some of the key economic policy and we're going to talk about governance. What are we governing? What are we talking about? So I hope with this policy that give us a baseline understanding of how Filecoin works and then what are the policies that we are considering. So but before that, let's just talk very briefly about Filecoin. If you guys been to my previous talk, I talk about this a lot, but I'm going to do it again because I realize everyone came from a slightly different background. So people always thought about Filecoin as just a storage network, but I think in front of our last point of view it's way more than just storage. If you think of Filecoin as a storage network, you are underselling Filecoin, underestimating the potential, right? First of all, I think it's really a layer one, a protocol that really starts with data and it's designed to store a massive amount of data, but sometimes we have massive supply that the demand may not be there yet and that's one of the biggest challenges that our ecosystem might be facing. And then it's also a multi-sided marketplace enabled by blockchain, it's super exciting. I think it's one of the first few blockchains on the base protocol level that actually have a mission and try to achieve something and do something. It's also an island economy where people come together producing these valuable resources called distributed cloud storage with proof and then they try to export that to the outside world and then our goal is to really to bring more people onto our island and then try our product. And another useful analogy that I always use is you think of it as an Airbnb for cloud services where you have like every miner or every storage providers on Filecoin are essentially an Airbnb host, right? They are mass audits resources and then they let people try their services, right? And it's not just storage too, it's also storage, compute and connectivity. I will argue, I think the Filecoin network is one of the, in terms of like the hardware and all this like power, I think we are one of the strongest network just from the hardware perspective in all of F3. And also it's a very passionate research engineering product community. I think everybody's here super friendly, we really trying to build something new, something different, something like how can we make blockchain really mainstream and useful and really deliver this kind of internet scale experience in F3. So these are three illustrations. The one on the top is the Filecoin network fee. We implemented an EIP 1559 variant. We talk more about that, but these are all the Filecoin that were paid to the network as network fees. And then a second chart basically, a second diagram basically compare Filecoin with all the other storage network out there, right? So I think Dave mentioned just now we have like 17 exabyte of capacity that is 10% of AWS today. And that is about the same size as Google Cloud in 2018. And Filecoin achieved that in just one a year and a half which is an amazing milestone. And then the other illustration is just like the different parties in this island working together. And here's another way to look at this, right? Like you have the storage providers. These are different participants on the Filecoin network. You have storage providers kind of like amassing all the different resources, producing reliable and useful storage. And this is getting incentivized by the protocol. We would like to incentivize more things in a fully decentralized setting, but the other things are much harder to prove, right? We hear about some of these things that are useful but harder to prove later today, right? And the clients are the storage clients, right? They store data on Filecoin today, but then very soon they can do a lot more. And then sometime if you hear this term client they might be a bit confusing. So because Filecoin is both a blockchain, but also an Airbnb for cloud services, but also like many, many, many other things, right? So in this particular case, we talk about storage clients, right? They work directly with the storage providers to use their storage, but you can also think of people using the blockchain as clients, right? And that if you think about people using the blockchain as clients, in that case, the storage providers are clients of the Filecoin network as well. It's a bit confusing, I hope we're on the same page. And then token holders can stake our coin to facilitate more storage onboarding and capital efficiency. And then the ecosystem partner participating really actively in this space. Cool, then now we can move on to the different policy. So let's talk about block reward. So in 2017, like when Filecoin first announced where we have this exponential decay in the block reward curve, this is pretty common practice in many website projects, but as a crypto econ lab we also observed there are quite a few incentive issue around this, where like the incentive is the strongest when the network is the least mature, right? You give out the most rewards in the very beginning, right? And also the reward is entirely time release, based on how much time has elapsed since the beginning of the network. And in this actual decay, the problem here becomes like the earlier, there's a massive, massive like first mover advantage because just because you're here early, you earn a lot more. And especially when the network is the least mature and the least secure. So then we creatively define this kind of block reward policy, which we call a baseline minting where we define a KPI for the network. So the reward minting, block reward minting on the blockchain protocol depends on how much storage is being committed to the network. It starts with I think 2.5 exabyte and it doubles every year. So right now the baseline is eight exabyte, it will double to 16 exabyte in the coming year. So the blockchain, the block reward minting is only at its maximum speed when this KPI is being met and it's being met over time. So this is being computed over time on every single block on the follow-up network. And this is a software aspect with our team like design the system. So here are some of the empirical numbers. The baseline was crossed in April last year. So we are in like full speed minting right now. So you can see the network block rewards where it's steadily increasing because we're behind the baseline, the network is holding back its minting, deferring that to the future because the network hasn't reached its KPI. But once it's KPI, we follow the exponential decay minting curve. The next policy is a collateral policy. So this is kind of how Filecoin work. So you have the miner coming to the network, the squares there are the blockchain.  It's like a Uber network. It's like, hey, Filecoin, I have some spare capacity here, here's my proof. And then like, if anybody wants to take it, come talk to me, right? It's kind of like Airbnb hosts getting listed on Airbnb platform, Uber, empty Uber, drivers, empty Uber being driven on the road, picking up demand, right? And it's super important because a platform economy that's always at full service, there's not enough slack to pick up any upcoming demand. And then for the miner, they put the token into this capacity or sometimes we call it like a container and then they run some compute over it and then they commit it to the Filecoin protocol and then they start earning rewards. And then later on, they can, let's say when the demand really comes around, they can choose to upgrade that capacity and take client deals and earn even more rewards. Quite a few of us would talk more about how that worked exactly later on. So the collateral does two things. One part is to ensure the reliability of the storage which turned out to be fairly reliable. And then the other one is to secure the consensus. We can see this chart in terms of percentage of Filecoin log as part of the security supply and also the total Filecoin log over time. And then with the collateral, there's also slashing. So slashing happens. It's either you violate the consensus security of the protocol or you basically, I told the protocol, hey, I'm committing some storage but like my storage is not reliable. So the Filecoin blockchain comes around to all the storage provider every single day and say, hey, can you show me your storage? And the provider say, hey, here you go, good, nothing happened. But if they say, oh, no, I may have lost the data and then the blockchain will actually slash some of the collateral. So far it has been pretty reliable and then we can all see these are very clear correlation between like the thoughts on the Filecoin network and the collateral that's being slashed from all the SPs on the network. And then also gas policy. So we implemented a variant of EIP 1559 about a year before Ethereum did and then like we make a few variations and we are consistently doing new research and making new modification to the gas policy. This is like the daily gas burn on Filecoin. I can go a lot more details into why this trial looks the way it is but I think for now we're just gonna leave it as is. So, but to illustrate, right this to illustrate Filecoin is like a layer one protocol as much as anything else. And next, there's also this very key Filecoin innovation which is called FuelPlus. It adds a layer of social trust on top of Filecoin. It also give a lot more power and leverage to storage clients. In short, for a storage provider who store clients, FuelPlus clients data, they get a 10x boost to the power which increases the chance of them earning a block reward. And then the mission and the goal here really is to incentivize more useful storage on the Filecoin network. And this program has seen a tremendous adoption in the last like few months where like we actually onboarding more than one petabyte of useful data every single day. So you have one petabyte of data being used by clients every single day. And by the way, so all the chart that I just showed you it's all public and that's the beauty of this. And I also realized there's so much data on Filecoin and so many APIs and there's so many things to explore. And then there's also created a dashboard that if you just want to like a bird's eye view of what's going on in the network, those dashboards are there as well. So next I'm gonna give a brief update of where we are as a network. And then so that people have the right context of what are the major challenges in our ecosystem and what are the different opportunities because whenever you have a challenge it's always an opportunity. So this is a chart that's I think it's the leading indicator of the Filecoin network's health. This is chart on the new storage being onboarded onto the network. The equivalent of this in Bitcoin is like your hash rate, right? But this is like the delta of the hash rate in a sense is how much compute, how much resources being newly added to the Filecoin network every single day. So when we first launched the network it was about 20 paper bytes a day, right? So because maybe it's new, who knows how it's Filecoin network secured and many questions about the Filecoin network. So our store provider a bit more cautious and prudent in onboarding the storage but as time goes on, oh, this network is great. We're gonna add more. So people add a lot more storage and this is also being bottlenecked by the chain scalability, right? Because as I mentioned earlier if you are a store provider you think of a Filecoin blockchain, right?  And then the Filecoin engineering team introduced a chain, introduced a protocol improvement that increased the scalability of Filecoin protocol by 10 to 25 acts, right? So then it unlocks even more onboarding. But then around September some of the global macro climate has changed. Then the onboarding rate has decreased since then but in more recent months going up again, right? Because people feel like, oh, after this negative news going on in a global macro environment people feel more confident again, right? They onboard a lot more storage. And even with the recent market downturn we don't see a significant decrease in the onboarding rate. All the store provider are still very bullish about the Filecoin network. They're still adding massive amounts of data and storage to the Filecoin network every single day. And this is like the same chart, the chart that we showed earlier about the daily network fees that is being paid to network for using it, right?  So onboarding is one part it's like the inflow of storage capacity to the Filecoin network but it's at the same time there's also awful. I feel like I hesitated because I feel like I'm getting a bit more into the details here but apologize if it's a bit confusing. So when people onboard storage they're promising a network and say, hey, I'm storing some data for some duration, right? There's a fixed duration over here and this data might be expiring over time. So this is a chart that says, oh, sure you have data being onboarded but at the same time some data might be expiring. So this is looking forward, looking forward. So all the orange bars are the potential expiration on the Filecoin network. So these are data that might leave the network down the line but then all the blue bars are how much of this data are being renewed how much of this sort of being renewed to stick around on a Filecoin network and it makes a lot of sense because you see more renewal as this is where we are right now the bright yellow are in the past and orange are going forward. So you see more renewal closer to the expiration date and then that renewal rate declines over time because it's further out in the future we are not sure we can make up and I can make up my mind later as a storage provider whether I want to extend. But what this means on a token flow level is like when people when they expire their sector there's always release of initial pledge with collateral. So this will be another, this will be so given the schedule expiration you will see this increase in liquidity in the Filecoin network and just mark the date around February that's the first wave of sector expiration. So then we also make this chart about the actual supply and demand of the Filecoin token. Like you actually see the yellow bar here is when it's above the x-axis that means that it's being removed from the circling. Sorry, this chart is on the lock Filecoin when it's above the x-axis it means that you're locking more Filecoin when it's below the x-axis it means that you are releasing more Filecoin. So you see that for onboarding for initial pledge it's always above the x-axis it's only when expiration happened it's not go below the x-axis. But in recent month we did see lots of positive growth where the increase in where the initial pledge is making up a bigger proportion of the lock Filecoin. Again, I think it's too much in the weeds. But this is being attributed to strong adoption of Filecoin plus where given this chart where you have like more than one pair by a Filecoin being used every day and the clients lock more collateral as well it actually bring back the circling supply. But to summarize what I'm trying to say from the state of network really is even given the macro downturn all this headwind coming our way we still see very strong health in terms of storage onboarding we see lots of adoption with Filecoin plus and then looking at the token supply and demand this is even though times are hard but I think like it's still moving in the upward direction. Well lastly to close it off we're gonna talk about the I think like I mentioned many things like in passing there are many other speakers today we go through in greater details about gas, about circling supply about different kinds of application and businesses that you can build on Filecoin and so on and so forth and also for we are hosting two more CryptoEcon day after today today is our second time hosting CryptoEcon day in Austin we're so excited to be here we're hosting two more one in ECC in Paris in July if you guys are gonna be there let us know we'd like to have you back and we're also hosting another one in few Singapore in August.