I would say that any movie or any witness that has as its basis the power of the mind and the power of thought has value because this is a journey inward and the Holy Spirit knows that we have to use the symbols, the symbols of the world have to be used as part of the mind training authentically to regain or remember or recognize the power of the mind. So when the movie The Secret came out I remember doing a gathering in Pennsylvania and we showed that movie and and then it was I said it was like a great launching pad into going into a deeper discussion because basically the mind is very powerful and part of the mesmerism of this world has been to forget the mind to become mindless. What does that even mean mindless? Well all the focus on the body and the brain and neurology and neurotransmitters and peptides even in some of our best quantum physics movies like What the Belief Do We Know and things like that. You hear Candace Perth and a lot of the scientists talking about like brain waves like neurological movements as associated with the mind as if the brain and the mind are the same and they aren't they're far from it but you can see those are steps into opening to an awareness of the mind and into the power of the mind. So certainly the movie The Secret was one of its central themes was on manifesting. What I was saying yesterday with this idea of no manifesting is that deeper you go into the experience of the integration of the wholeness of the unification the even the duality of thought and world manifested world that seems to be actually to the human being it seems to be just the way things are but there are physical there's a physical world that seems to be outside and then there's a mental world that seems to be inside and what Jesus does is he takes his course and he just starts working with his workbook lessons you know my thoughts are images that I have made my meaningless thoughts are showing me a meaningless world he starts off you know there's a method he starts off with lesson number one nothing I see means anything really what he's saying is nothing I perceive means anything I have given everything I see all the meaning it has for me and it's not until those are the first two lessons they're very much about perception he's talking about the perceived world then in lesson number four already just four lessons into his mind training program he comes in with his first thought lesson these thoughts do not mean anything then he kicks it back into perception again for five six seven eight nine and then he comes back again with number ten my thoughts do not mean anything what he's doing through his mind training workbook is he's he's guiding the mind into an experience to show the mind that the thoughts that it thinks it thinks and the world that it thinks it sees are actually the same but he's aiming at a unification of awareness where you start to realize in one instant one glorious instant that there is no world outside the mind in fact he says it in the workbook in many different ways you know it's kind of like did you get it did you get it did you get it it was like kind of did you get it yet there's even one point where he says that this world is a world of ideas and he really means it it's all ideas it's all equally ideas it's not that we have some ideas that are mental and some that are physical some that are manifestations you know when you hear Wayne Dyer or Deepak get together and talk about manifesting you know manifests what you want or in the secret you know manifest everything the underlying assumption in the whole topic of manifesting is bringing form bringing from thought into form you know or when you hear stories about let's say somebody from India like Sai Baba you know manifesting bracelets you know manifesting jewelry see from thought into form and what I'm teaching is when you go for enlightenment and self-realization the whole point of all this mind training is to see that there is no distinction that everything is consciousness and only consciousness that that this is a world of ideas and more than that that this is a world of ideas and that all of these ideas that make up the world are equally false are there are none that are more true than any of the other ones that's a really high goal but that's exactly where this is leading so that's what I was talking about that there really is no manifesting that's that's you know when you move into self-realization or enlightenment you see that the whole the whole idea the whole concept of manifesting just evaporates like a cloud that just evaporates or a puddle of water that evaporates some of you might have seen the movie what the bleep did we know and then they did a sequel called down the rabbit hole might have seen that when this beautiful too beautiful quantum physics movies and there's one physicist in there who is talking about assumptions and and he's saying that when you start to reach a point of connectivity where you where you realize the quantum field the unified quantum field that certain questions just completely dissolve and seem to be utterly ridiculous you don't seem to be meaningful questions I think I can't remember I think he's he uses the example of like the the marital status of number five number five he talks about down the rabbit hole he said that the questions become as meaningless as what is the marital status of the number five you know and and imagine those problems and issues in your life that seem to be so reoccurring and and so difficult and so challenging that from the higher perspective we'll call it unification that these questions that seem so troubling are are about as ridiculous as what is the marital status of the number five it's really great when you can start to open your mind to to seeing that instead of being so troubled


This is a view from the north, a view from Canada and to Canada. We talked to Ken Rogers in Kelowna, Canada. And the last time we talked about the relationship of inflation and the economy and the health of the country in general, and the health of the relationship with Canada, how Canada would do in various circumstances and how Europe and Asia would do. But when I finished with that, as we left it, we were going to address some of the wrinkles that come out of the climate change factor. Yeah, so we still have the issue of the default, Ken. That's still possible. It's in the paper every day, but it's not clear that they will ever agree or that McCarthy will ever come around and just lift the debt ceiling, which is what the government has been doing for decades. So here's the question to follow is we don't know exactly what's going to happen on that or when it's going to happen or how long it's going to stick in place.  We do not know what's going to happen on that. We don't have a sense, I know that AI could help us. We don't have a sense of the priorities, which one has greater weight. We don't have a sense of all the factors we talked about. We don't have a sense of the duration element. Some people say that the longer these factors stay in place, it's better than some people say the longer they stay in place, it's worse. It needs an algorithm, thinking of which I went and I put in the questions that we raised last time and looked at those questions and the answers in chat GBT and guess what? You were right on everything. I'm impressed. Your education speaks for you, Ken. At least you agree with chat GBT anyway. My former wife would have never agreed with that. It was always wrong. Since we spoke about this subject, the Fed has what raised the read discount rate just a little bit and a question, why is that a good move because if you lined up 15 economists and 15 journalists, you'd get 37 answers on whether it was a good move or not. Not clear. What do you think? If you're trying to curb inflation, that's the right thing to do. It's just that simple. Yeah, but you know, the other factors that are hand in glove, for example, the jobs report came out since we spoke and the jobs report was good. We have less unemployment, but if you have less unemployment, you have more money, this is your analysis last time, feeding into the economy. And if you have that, then you have a great prospect of inflation. So these things don't work necessarily in tandem. They sometimes they work against each other. So how do you feel about that? Some people say that we are not going to get out of the risk of recession. We're not going to get out of inflation until we have a bad jobs report. That's usually a logical answer. That's because inflation usually causes problems with employment. You know, but your employment factor, like if you have wage or wage push kind of thing, if wages go up, you're going to have more inflation. Like if wages get where the expectations of the unions and the employees are such that they believe there will be more inflation, they will keep pushing for higher wages. You know, so importantly, the Federal Reserve and government agencies, if they're responsible, will try to job on that expectation down. Say, you know, we're going to raise interest rates until the economy loses a bit of steam and, you know, wage demands, you don't need them because we're going to curb the inflation.  Well, that correlates in the direction that the labor market may be one of the causes of the inflation, you know, and so you need to cool those expectations or you need to encourage people, companies to hire less people. You know, you just cannot have inflation at a high number for very long. Otherwise, you're going to have the expectations that inflation will keep going and all of the factors will start to keep causing it to go higher and higher. And in, you know, not too long, you'll have a mess like you have in Argentina. You know, I've been thinking about expectations since we spoke last and you mentioned that was one of the three pillars, if you will, of inflation. But I've been thinking about, you know, it's kind of subjective. We all know that economics is an art, not a science. And, you know, talking about expectations, talking about talking about psychology, social psychology on a grand scale affecting three hundred and thirty million people.  Some say this is good, some say it's bad. And people in general are probably, see if you agree with me, they're probably uncertain which way is good, which way is bad, whether we like what's happening or don't like what's happening. And that leads to what we call uncertainty and therefore expectations that are mixed. So if you look around the country for expectations in a given moment now in our world today of divisiveness and political trouble, it's hard to find a single strain, a single sensibility in which you find is that people are on both sides of the issue. And so if you're looking at that third category, that third factor you spoke of expectations, you know, it's it's hard to get a clear read on that. Some people think they're staying cash, other people not because cash depreciates with inflation. So I mean, how do you handle that? What's the priority among the three factors you discussed of expectations now? Well, I don't agree with one of your premises.  I think there's zero question whatsoever that the public believes that inflation is a bad thing. You know, too much inflation in particular is a bad thing. You know, the only time that the public thinks otherwise is in the value of their house. The public doesn't even connect inflation in the stock market. You know, the very wealthy people will, you know, count that to a degree, but not Joe public. Now, similarly, Joe public believes that a really strong jobs market is good.  It's really bad. You know, last time we hit the points of where expectations was really the third factor. But but the dominant one that gets really scary, you know, when it causes it to get out of hand.  That push, you know, ups the cost of that.  You've got, you know, other factors that that when you're managing the economy or trying to, you know, if you're the Federal Reserve Bank or you're, you know, the U.S. federal government, the various agencies that have got like Treasury and such that are trying to manage the economy, you know, they're looking at all the factors and and recognize that if you have, if you start to get too much inflation, you know, you need to stomp on it. You know, if you have unemployment, you need to do something like during COVID, you know, the response was you're going to have unemployment people are staying at home.  We've had a couple of things here in the past few days, actually. One is the Fed's increase in the rate by a modest amount, but nevertheless an increase. I find that interesting. At the same time, there have been a number of commentators and reporters who have said that, hey, inflation is down and down for the month of April and it looks good for the year 2023 and 2024. So there is there are signs that we are out of danger as far as inflation is concerned, particularly on 2024. I can't for the life of me understand how they can project that with so many variables in the world today. But that's that's what a lot of them have said. Do you accept that? Sort of. I mean, when you say there are so many variables, well, the econometric models, which people like the Federal Reserve and major banks and major corporations have involving artificial intelligence can handle, you know, a ridiculous number of factors. And and it's really the human judgment on how to weigh them. Yeah, I agree. Whether they're going to be successful or whether they're going to fail in their attempt to steer or tweak the economy to in the direction they want.  You know, the public basically thinks whoever's the president, that that's who's running the government. And therefore, if it's good, we like him. If the if something happens, you know, if the if the Republicans can create this mess, Biden will be blamed for it. Period. Aside from the blame issues, suppose they can't cut a deal and we don't have a lifting and an increase in the debt ceiling. That's a disaster because it would affect only this country, but, you know, the world. And and here's the other point is that how fixable is it? In other words, those negative implications of not raising a debt ceiling. It's not like you can fix it overnight because they have a long shadow. They have a momentum, if you will, here and there and everywhere. All all the economies that are affected by the US, the strongest economy in the world will suffer. And if you turn around, say, we were only kidding. We're perfectly willing to increase the debt ceiling. That doesn't necessarily solve it. So, you know, you have damage that is profound on day one, or at least in the middle of June anyway. Well, you have to get back to sort of the the cause or the underlying factors.  Well, that wouldn't affect you at all. You know, your your employment income would continue. You could still pay your rent and you could still, you know, keep your wife happy and you could chug along. Other factors that would that would apply to me, for example, if the Republicans got into office and undermined social security and Medicare and then you added that to my whatever my debt structure is. Then you have a multiplier effect and I really do care. Let me come back to the causes for the US economy and the debt situation. Essentially, the United States only spends more money than the rest of the wealthy countries in the world. On two things, military and prisons. They don't spend anywhere as much as everybody else on everything else. The US pays so so much less for social security and the social safety net than everybody else. I put the numbers in perspective first. You'd have Western Europe has 40 percent of their gross domestic product that is government spending in the United States and in Europe. You know, they have tax rate roughly the same, you know, that each country may run a modest deficit. But the United States, they spend so little on social programs that that really their total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is around 26 percent in part due to the Trump tax cuts. You know, they're the deficit of the US is 6 percent. Six billion dollars, rather, which is really about 20 percent of what the government spends. So that if you think of, you know, the debt ceiling, what what happens, you know, nobody really knows for sure. So you've got to say, well, the the United States starts with a position that that and if you just thought of an on an annualized basis, if you're going to spend six trillion, rather, got to get the right. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, the trillion, the number you were thinking of was six billion. Yeah, OK, trillion. OK, if you've got to have going to spend six trillion more then you've got an income in taxes, then you've got to borrow that. Hence, we're getting close to the idea of the debt ceiling. Or if you say, well, gee, the Republicans say, we're not going to let you borrow. So but you're underneath you've got the cause is the United States spends less money on everything except military and and prisons than all other wealthy countries. They do spend so much less on the social safety net that you really have poverty and inequality in the United States. They're really they're far more widespread and they're far more stubborn than there are in any of the other wealthy countries. And a great example of the result of that is the average life expectancy in the United States is six years less than than the other members of the G7 or wealthy countries. How about less than Canada? Yeah, oh, yeah. And in Canada, our life expectancy is a couple years less than than Western Europe, but about four years better than in the US. But Canada is kind of in between. In some regards, for example, our income or government tax take is about 33 percent, the US about 26 and Europe about 40. Europe has a ton of social programs now. That's correct now. But is that good, bad or indifferent? I mean, if you're the guy on the street and in the United States or you're in Mississippi and you're just an ordinary person getting starved into death or, you know, having a lot of trouble making ends meet. You know, you'd say Europe's far better than what you have there. But, you know, if you're the multimillionaire American, you say, that's terrific. We don't want to have any taxes at all. You know, just everybody can fend for themselves. You know, 20 years ago can maybe more when we started noticing people on the street homeless. And OK, we had that in Hawaii and there was some education that was happening elsewhere, but now it's kind of knitting together and that every city has homeless and very few jurisdictions do much about it, some more, some less. But the fact is that we have homeless who are off the grid, don't have a home, don't have any money, don't have anything. Medical care.  It didn't try hard enough, all that, you know, kind of Republican view of it. But it signifies that the system is broken. The system is broken, not only here in Hawaii in terms of that, but all across the mainland and you have it in Canada, too, maybe to a lesser degree.  If you recall, we had a program one month back over in a thing called Hastings Street. Well, they're still trying to clean up Hastings Street. But, you know, it's a great cause and effect result. It's a metric, isn't it? I mean, not that you would count the people on the street, but just on a gestalt level, you see, every city has all these people that are homeless and have no options and no prospects. Well, you say this is not a working economy. Well, if you take a social safety net, you know, and if you take your most extreme liberal approach and say, oh, all these poor people, we all we have to do something. Well, if you really look at the people, we really have alcohol addiction, drug addiction and mental illness. Now, those three items, you know, are the root cause of about 90 percent of the homelessness. Yeah, well, you got to do something about it. And, you know, we got to resuscitate those people, rehabilitate them and we don't do that. And in the modern world, there's plenty of drugs, there's plenty of alcohol, there's plenty of places to fall down. And if you want to maintain a stable society and a stable economy and a stable rate of inflation, I suppose, you really have to address that. And the problem is, and this is I always wanted to put this question to the problem is that Joe Biden can spend a ton of money on social safety and on social programs. He can outdo, you know, Europe, I mean, assuming no debt ceiling. He can spend, you know, trillions and trillions. And he can probably, you know, make some inroads on these social problems in the country. But somewhere, Milton Friedman should be here with us today. Somewhere, there's got to be a red line. Somewhere, the money runs out. Somewhere, the country as an entity, as a polity, cannot continue to exist if you keep on digging in your pocket and printing more money or finding more money or taking more money. I wonder where the red line is and how close we are to it and how that, you know, affects our inflation. And for that matter, our relations with other countries and the world in terms of what do you want to call it, economic policy? I tend to think, you know, in Canada, our biggest problem with the dealing with the homeless people you know, comes back to those three factors of drug addiction, alcohol addiction and mental illnesses is our legal system really has a pretty simple catch and release policy, you know, so that all of these homeless people continue to create a stream of small crimes. Most of them are small, you know, but you do have large crimes arising from them. But on these small crime, they'll go by and they'll break the window of a storefront, you know, on purpose. Well, you know, they just get to spend one night in jail and they're back out.   You know, for example, in in Canada, in the United States, you know, 25 or well, I guess it might be 50 years ago, we used to have mental institutions, you know, well, they got closed down. You know, gee, that's an inhumane thing.  Well, including those with alcohol, drug or mental illness, you know, in the United States, they can all qualify for AR-15. I think we must be approaching a red line somewhere.  And then, OK, and here's the question, my last question to you today, but it was also my first question is then on top of that, you have something that's less predictable. You have the floods and the forest fires. You have the droughts that affect agriculture. You have all of these things that flood down on us from climate change, for which we have not spent any money in deferring and deterring and which we're going to have to, you know, deal with on an emergency basis, which is going to cost a lot of money. So so you start with an unworkable proposition and subject to the surprise of surprises that climate change is expensive. So when you add it all together, there isn't enough there isn't enough money to handle this. And my question to you is let's assume that's the case sooner, not later. You don't talk about duration of climate change can do real damage and you and you have to put money in to fix it. You know, it's just sort of like Ukraine has been completely demolished. Got to put money in to fix it. Where's the money coming from? And how do we handle that as a as a fiscal policy matter? How do we handle that as a banking matter and investment matter? Do we have the institutional structures and the money to do that? Or does something really awful happen when we run out of money as a country, as a society? I don't agree with you that there's not enough money.  You know, if you think of JFK following when the Russians put Sputnik up in the air and zoomed around, you know, and he immediately gave his sparkling speech or series of them. But I particularly remember one about, you know, we will get to the moon and we can do it and blah, blah, blah. Well, that was a very expensive effort to create NASA and the U.S. program, you know, but really in terms of the total scale of the U.S. financial capability, it was deadly squad. Well, that was a different time. And if you look at the national debt then and now, it's way different. It's not in the one with 20, 20 trillion dollars or something along those lines. Well, when you went went through World War Two, there were humongous deficits. We're really active economy for following World War Two. And it was you never saw growth like that ever. And that that helped, didn't it? How did that arise compared to today? You see, and if you start in 1946 or 1950, you know, where the wealthy in Canada, and I'm not sure of the numbers in the U.S., the marginal tax rate was like 90 percent. You know, and the very wealthy were not willing to pay that. You know, Canada even created a program of buck a year men where they had the most talented wealthy people in the country work for the government for a dollar a year to achieve all kinds of things for the war effort. So you come out of the war with though with a mindset of those very, very wealthy people, you know, that they could do anything. But they, you know, didn't need to have zero taxes. You know, they were very acceptance that that, you know, the country, everybody was pretty equal. You know, the poor guy at the bottom of the room, you know, his brother got killed in the war. And this, you know, sister was a nurse in the war.  Yeah, true. And the question is, how do we get back to that? That is the question because we have left that behind in history. All of that. It's a beautiful picture is the greatest generation on both sides of the border all over the all over the place and the Marshall plan and all the all the things that the U.S. did or tried to do in those years. Any event can thank you again for a great show and a great discussion. We'll talk some more about comparative what voting rights next time and we'll see what we can do back to Ken Rogers in finance and fiscal policy in in in global history and wisdom. Thank you so much, Ken. Bye for now. Aloha. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn and donate to us at think.kawaii.com. Mahalo.


Hey Holy that high trick there was actually a lot harder to do than it should have been Give cause and credit for doing that part of the end of this movie. Hey guys This is my review for drive a movie that is one of my favorites And I have never reviewed it the movie is seven years old now Which is crazy to think about it because this was a big movie to talk about when it came out in the summer of 2011 There was a lot of decisive Conflicts about it some people loved it some people hated it. I understand why people don't like it I can understand that it's not an everyday film also the marketing for the film was a lie The trailer showed it as an action-orientated film There was even that woman who did the lawsuit about it because it wasn't like a fast and the furious movie what drive is is an art house film with a Amazing visual style and against the norm form of character development and a pretty basic story that has fantastic character turns and a great film soundtrack There's a reason why Gosling's been on the wall for as long as he's been he's been in other places around the wall but Gosling right here is one of my first ever posters that I got from Redbubble and I Really enjoy this movie everything from how the film starts to the final shot of the film is all a very Very well-connected film the film is about Ryan Gosling's character Technically driver because you never know what his name is in the movie and he is a stuntman by day But he also does get away jobs for night on the side then he meets this girl who has a son and they start to Perform this relationship and he kind of moves into the stepdad role But then it turns out that she actually was married and that her husband comes back from prison And then there's this kind of interesting connection between the two especially when the husband is forced to do a job because of people who protected him in prison and Because the driver doesn't want the family to get hurt He helps out things go wrong and people start to die This is one of my favorite roles that Gosling's ever done his character has this mysterious edge to it He has this dark and Non-personal sort of side to him When he meets Karen He starts to kind of develop these emotional feelings and all the interactions between the two are almost like that of school kids kind of finding first love and that's what's so interesting about him is that he has this dark past You know he has these violent tendencies. He is a violent person He is the scorpion on his back and he continues to bring people in Inadvertently knowing that he's actually damaging them and himself and that's why the scorpion does it on the other side of the table There's Albert Brooks who is a fantastic villain in this film if you would call him that his character is definitely a Reasonable villain.  He's really funny in this movie Christina Hendricks you can see that there was a good relationship between the director and Ryan Gosling the director being Nicholas Winding Reference who went on to make nothing really of an interest to me afterwards immediately only God forgives is just a giant schlock of What the actual hell is going on in pompousness and I haven't seen the neon demon that I haven't really had any Want to but Nicholas I think does everything right in this movie the beginning of the film taking place all inside the car Creates a realm of reality and it pulls you into the film to make you feel like you're literally in the car during this chase sequence It's a very simple sequence because all of it is shot inside the car and it's such a refreshing turn from all the over Exposure and ridiculousness that's in the Fast and the Furious movies to see a really grounded car chase and The beginning of the film and kind of near the middle. It's a satisfying thing admittedly There is some editing mishaps particularly in that driving sequence of this in the kind of the middle of the film There's two really bad really bad goofs One time a car passes by and it totally changes when it cuts to behind the car and the car Accidents not really well edited either, but those are my only complaints about the film Gosling's character is a Fantastic portrayal a very dark and mysterious character his relationship with Carrie Mulligan is really good in the film The soundtrack like I said is super super good I was listening to the soundtrack for this film for months on end afterwards And even though my girlfriend does not like this movie at all. She does like a real hero by college and It's a great song and it plays into the story So well right at the very end when he's sitting there in that car and he doesn't blink for what feels like a minute and the whole time you're wondering is he alive is he dead and It's just a great way to end the movie kind of gives you this thought of what actually does happen to I understand Why people don't like this movie because admittedly it's not for everyone the lack of dialogue is Somewhat jarring to some I have had friends watch it who don't like it But the friends who do kind of see the point that it's not a vocal film. It's showing without telling It's a visual storytelling and you see that on their interactions on in their faces and that's why I feel the movie so good It's a refreshing Change from what we're so used to and admittedly they haven't really made anything like this in this sense Like they've done a lot of horror movies of oddly enough in the recent while which is cool But I would like to see another movie like Drive because I really enjoyed this film and I also have like a pretty sweet Steel box of it both my brother and I have this we both love this movie. So I really love this box art What's funny enough is this was refreshing because the two Cases the two Blu-ray DVDs that came out both American and Canadian were terrible like the worst Photoshop jobs You could ever imagine like just Bad, but in the end what is my rating for Drive? It's a seven out of seven for me. It's one of my favorite movies I think that this movie did set a place mark for itself in terms of its film style and just the way that the film interacts with the characters and with the events that happen and What's funny enough is at the time the director Didn't have a driver's license So what's kind of interesting that him he makes a movie about a driver when he can't drive himself So but again as I said, I understand why people don't like this movie There are some spots that are just different from what is the norm and it is art housey And I'm usually not a fan of art house films because I find that they go too pretentious But this one I feel is just right and everything that it does if you've never seen Chris Stockman's analysis of this film It's a fantastic analysis of it everything that I've missed he covers in great detail I'll admit that Stockman and I don't agree on much any more it seems But if you want to see a really good video essay about the film, I would definitely suggest it. I'll put it in the Link it somewhere in this video. Anyways guys, that's all for me. Hope you enjoyed this review It's a little bit of a random thing, but I thought I'd talk about it If you liked the video leave a like and if you're interested maybe subscribe otherwise I'll see you guys next time


So have they tracked down the fugitive star witness who was also a double agent for China and an arms dealer? Surprisingly Willie we have not heard very much about him since it became clear that he was indicted for Making false statements arms trafficking being an agent of China and on the lamb I just wonder since these people are such sticklers for what they call evidence I noticed that Willie didn't say allegedly when he called that whistleblower a double agent But as we all know these people operate on their own standards or lack thereof Also disturbing how the Democrats in their media are so bloodthirsty for every single one of these whistleblowers coming out against Biden And even cheering on by his own DOJ coming down hard on these people along with the FBI Retaliating right out in the open. I'm gonna get right back to this MSNBC clip But real quick I want to show you this montage that was put together by Tom Elliot of Grbyon.com showing the total 180 Democrats and the media have done on whistleblowers since Trump was president the attack on the whistleblower Is never wise. It's never lawful. It's never honorable. It's everything you said.  They don't deserve whistleblower protection each and every one of them has a The strange history has guess what Russian connections they always do Yeah, of course These are not as we would consider them whistleblowers people who are ledging wrong doing they weren't really whistleblowers at all In fact, they weren't even credible witnesses two or three people who are political operatives, but they're not whistleblowers These guys are not whistleblowers period Is a Hard-working patriotic person in the intelligence community who just wants to put the information out there in the president to call in the Question the credibility of this whistleblower. They're referring to this whistleblower as the so-called whistleblower. Oh That was different. Just so we're clear all of these people are lying scumbag state operatives for the government and they hate you He's he's on the land and what about the Biden bribery bribery tapes. We've heard about right. So the one Critical part of yesterday is that the witness completely debunked those allegations He was on the board of barisma all of the money that Hunter Biden got from barisma as being a member of the board went through Their joint company and he said there was no bribe of either Hunter or Joe Democratic member of the House Oversight Committee was in the room yesterday for that interview congressman Dan Goldman of New York I guarantee it Would I lie? But the what the Congress is theoretically looking into is some tie to Joe Biden they've provided no evidence for that Oh, well allow me to return well except there is evidence We have an FBI confidential human source reporting that Joe Biden told barisma that for 10 million He make their illegal problems go away Which is exactly what ended up happening if Joe Biden attending more than a dozen meetings with Hunter Bynes business associates Which again, he's been claiming for years now that he never did We have Hunter's text messages that leverages dad and appear to be extortion We have Biden changing his story over and over again over the last four years We even have the FBI publicly reporting that they had at least partially corroborated the Ukrainian bribery scheme Hunter Biden and his business contacts talking about the big guy Absolutely refer to Joe Biden on top of all of that We have multiple whistleblowers from the FBI and the IRS Reporting that they were stopped from investigating leads pointing to Joe Biden seems like something so-called journalists would want to investigate Instead, they're busy trying to cover for him. They haven't found it They've been working on this for years and years and years, but and I just love how this dumbass Willie Geis Dismisses the legitimacy of investigating Joe Biden because quote they've been going on for years and years and years Unlike the investigations into Donald Trump that somehow only now come to fruition just before an election Where he's the main rival of the sitting corrupt president. Come on.  Yeah, and understand what's happening here Psychologically right Donald Trump was impeached twice for things that the American people could watch on TV first was holding up Ukraine aid in exchange for Dirt on the Bidens right there was no question about the facts there wrong No, there actually are questions and those are just the opinions of a partisan Democrat Trump believed that he was looking for corruption before he released those funds And you can obviously argue that Biden bragged publicly on video about holding up Congressionally approved Ukrainian aid until they fired the attorney investigating barisma of which Hunter Biden was inexplicably a board member of So they said they had they were walking out to press kind of said nah, I said I'm not gonna We're not gonna give you the billion dollars They said you have no authority. You're not the president the president said I said call him I said I'm telling you're not getting a billion dollars I said you're not getting the billion. I'm gonna be leaving here. I think it was what six hours I look I said I'm leaving the six hours if the prosecutor is not fired. You're not getting the money.  Oh, that was different the Republicans It's it's just this internal primal urge to visit retribution on the Democrats And the problem is they can't find a fact Hunter Biden's business problems partner said yeah He was on some phone calls talking about the weather talking about the weather exchanging pleasantries And that's the end of that chapter notice how they only bring on Democrats to repeat Completely unchallenged the exact same talking points that we hear from the state media operatives It's all pure propaganda and it should make you angry. Yes He lied about talking to Hunter Biden about his business dealings And now we find out that Joe Biden was directly taking part back that he may have done it in a way that gives him plausible Denyability for his propagandist in the media to use doesn't change anything Joe Biden was only on that phone to give Hunter Biden whatever he needed to complete his business deal Joe Biden was lying Why was he lying? That right there is evidence that he took part in corrupt behavior That's all for this video make sure to hit that like button share this video and make sure to leave a comment to vent those frustrations


I want to live a life that God is pleased with and because he is holy the church is to be holy and I rest my hope fully on the return of Jesus Christ in anticipation of seeing him because he's coming at any time now the days are short we have little time to act and we need to we need to girt ourselves we need to take up the sword it's time for war we need to be ready and we need to be willing and we need to be used by God in these dark times people are looking to men to be men let's stand up and be that for the kingdom of God let us pursue the things of the Lord


So the couple of things we'll just do here real quick is put up some put up some our Hyperledger code of conduct in the in the chat and the antitrust and the antitrust. There's a link to our antitrust or our code of conduct antitrust. We'd like everyone to join our LinkedIn page. I'm going to put a link to our LinkedIn page here. Hyperledger Media and Entertainment SIG. And we can start today. I'm Brett Russell, co-chair of the Media and Entertainment Special Interest Group. Today I am pleased to introduce Jay Debra. Jay is a manager at Deloitte Consulting in Toronto. Overseeing blockchain digital assets and payments. Jay is no stranger to the entertainment industry having produced three future films, which were distributed by Netflix, Disney, and ABC Family. Today we will find out how Jay's preoccupation with blockchain technology is shaping his ideas of a web three collaborative storytelling and how blockchain will disrupt IP ownership in the entertainment industry. I will add that today is just day one. Stay tuned after today for more events with our Hyperledger Media and Entertainment SIG as we continue to engage with Jay and anyone that wishes to participate in ongoing efforts to build on Jay's vision using permission, hyperledger fabric, and compatible technologies and blockchains. Welcome Jay. Good to see you. You have the floor sir. Thank you very much. And yeah, that was a great intro. As Brett said, I'm at Deloitte. I do a lot of work in blockchain and payments. I'm in our block manager in our blockchain and digital assets group. I previously was a film producer. And when I first saw smart contracts back in 2017, I shifted to this industry alongside just seeing the streaming wars between Netflix and Amazon Prime videos start to take off. And it was clear to me that there was going to be a disruption in this industry stemming from blockchain. I just didn't exactly know how yet. And I know that some of you who are in this meeting right now might be left over from the last one. So please to have you here. The topic of this really is how blockchain can disrupt. IP ownership in the entertainment industry. And if you've been paying attention at all just to the rough headlines. There we right now we have strikes going on with the writer's guild with the actors union in the, in the States and which is extending over to Canada. And the main reason behind all of that is just revenue and what really traces back to ownership. So what I'm going to do just because it's I always find it's best to sort of start this conversation from this part. I'm going to share my screen. Because I want to start with just a little overview of how the entertainment industry actually how the modern entertainment industry actually works. So just one second I'm going to share screen and. And let me know when you are able to see it. Someone just give me a little thumbs up. Go ahead. Jail, it's all good. Okay, great. And yeah, well, we'll be plenty of time for questions. So the current state of entertainment companies, this is in 2023. There's a really great VC named Matthew Ball, who writes a lot on this topic, but entertainment and what it is has really shifted. Whereas it used to be a model of just making something that's entertainment, entertaining and then getting it picked up by a distributor to go into theaters. That's no longer what we're looking at. We have a few conglomerates, conglomerates, absolutely suffocating oxygen out of the industry. And that is because they are able to produce content across all channels and to mine their existing IP. And I'll get into what I mean by that in a second, but in order to be successful as an entertainment company in 2023, you need to be building franchises. You need to be building IP that you are then continually building love for via other channels and then repeating. So let's just use Disney as an example because they are the best example. Disney is what actually Disney's goal as a business, even though you see their films in on massive screens and hear about them breaking billion dollar records with Avengers movies. Disney's goal is actually not to get you into seats in their theater. Disney's goal is to have your kids and your nephews and nieces wanting to wear Spider-Man pajamas and just wanting to ride the rides at their parks. They essentially stretch across as many verticals as they can. And what they have that is really unique is they own these franchises in the form of Marvel and Star Wars. So they and what they have unique in Marvel is they have a low-cost, low-margin business in their comic book business. They have a really low-cost incubator where they can create all this source material and actually test it on their low-end market that buys comic books. And when they go out to make a movie or a TV show, they already know what's popular because they have had the ability to test out their IP in their markets already. Now, for any company that is smaller than Disney, aka basically any company, this is just simply not a possibility. And I don't know, I'll assume that I don't need to get into the reasons why a startup company can't afford to build a theme park, to build a Disney World-type establishment. But essentially, it's become a problem because in order to get your film into a theater, you need to be able to project massive, massive ticket sales. And there are very few companies other than those that produce blockbusters that can even convince the theaters of that. If you've heard of A24, there are certain taste makers that have been able to be successful in securing theatrical release spots for more indie productions, it's very, very rare. So another thing to note, though, is that even Disney and even the Netflixes of the world, they cannot do it all. They cannot do all of this. Specifically, one area that has become increasingly important for entertainment companies to capture is video gaming. And Netflix and Disney have both tried and failed at launching their video games in-house. And that's because it's because for an entertainment company that does screen entertainment to build video games, it's the same as asking a film producer to open a restaurant. They're just completely different competencies. So as it says along the bottom here, partnerships are required when building love for IP via channels that are beyond your core competency. And Disney, the most successful video games based on Disney's content in the last couple of years have been those where they've licensed out their IP. So right off the bat, we can see that there is some teamwork required when, even when you're Disney, right? There has to be some sort of decentralization of IP in order to, in order to get that, in order to sort of bring these areas alive. So now let's expand this framework a little bit. And let's talk about if IP is at the center of any entertainment company, where does IP come from? So you have four options. And, you know, this is like, this is not an exact science, but this is the world as I'm going to present it today. And it's, it's a pretty, it's a pretty exhaustive view. So your first option is you can mine your own source material. And what do I mean by that? It's exactly what I just talked about with Disney and owning the comic books. It's, if you already own a catalog of source material, you can do more with it. It's the same way that on Netflix, if they already own Stranger Things, they can create a, and they need to boost some viewer numbers. They can put out, and they're between shooting seasons, they can put out a making, like a, you know, a making of Stranger Things documentary, or they can go do some sort of event or installation in a mall. They, that's the type of thing of mining their own source material. Then we go to build original. This is what the big film studios do. The Fox is the Warner Brothers. They just develop scripts. They develop original scripts. You've got, you know, like the franchises, we all know and love the, the national treasures and this and that, those that are sort of just out of the vision of one right, of one writer or one team of writers. This is extremely expensive because you're dealing with, and I mean, let's just say they're both expensive to actually come into the, when flipping back to mining your own source material, you need to be able to own a catalog that people actually love. Right. So it's like either you stumbled into some, to a series that people love or you haven't. Yeah. And then when it comes to building original, you're dealing with the writers union for this.  It's also just, you're taking a huge gamble. Look at how many blockbuster movies are marketed for over a year and then just flop when you're building original IP, anything can happen and it's a high risk investment. Then we get to licensing. This has become sort of, and licensing also includes adaptation. So what we see a lot in this, this is most is best captured by what we've seen in sort of the young adults fiction category and tons of tons of categories of movies, but, you know, the hunger games and the, and divergent and all these like massive series that are all in your face. Those are licensed from authors and that is, that's a model. Right.  Those might fight over the licensing rights, but then once it's done, once the deal is done, you're making movies on it. And then, you know, the, it's the same thing HBO is doing with Game of Thrones and you just hope that you have a large dependency on whoever created the series to keep writing the source material. And otherwise, otherwise, if that writer drops off for some reason, you're going to need to figure it out. And if anyone in this room watches Game of Thrones, you see what the, it's a perfect example of the risk when the actual, when the adaptation eclipses the, the source material and the source material is not there yet. And the result disappoints the fan base and severely lessens the value of the brand. Finally, we're going to get to the fourth option, which is the topic of where we're going to go from here. And this is leveraging open source IP. So what do I mean by that? I mean, you know, open source is a term that is so familiar in the software development world and it's actually much less familiar in the creative world. But why should it be right? They are the same thing. People are just out there creating source material the same way that they're creating that they're writing code. Why can we not? Why shouldn't we be able to leverage open source IP? And let's get into next. What do we mean by open, by open source IP? So what makes, whoops, I'm going to my screen share. I just went away one second. Sorry. Any questions in the meantime? Well, I am. Well, this backup. No questions in the chat right now. Okay, great. I'm going to pull this back up. Okay. Here we go. So what makes viable open source IP? So there are sort of two ways that we have seen this coming that occasionally interplay with one another. And there's some really great examples. So collaborative storytelling, let's start with that on the bottom can include a whole bunch of number of things. It's their communities for it that we see on Reddit. So like it goes from, it can be just a really fun, it can be a really fun exercise that is just storytelling where people build upon each other. And probably the most famous example of that is fan fiction. So I'm sure a lot of people may or may not know this, but if you've heard of the 50 shades of gray franchise, 50 shades of gray started as Twilight fan fiction, which of course was not like not legal strictly speaking, right? Because we talked about in our previous slide, that would have been the licensing part of this, that somebody, some movie studio licensed the Twilight books and then online, they just with no intention to make money out of it started just writing fan fiction about it that drifted far away enough that it drifted far enough from the source material, that it shouldn't actually be, that it wasn't actually a copyright infringement anymore. But the thing was once it drifted far enough from, once it drifted far enough from Twilight fan fiction, all of a sudden it was just people adding on, collaborating and adding on to stories and stories. And all of a sudden one day, a publishing studio licensed somebody's book 50 shades of gray and the community really revolted against it. They basically said this book is full of stuff that she, that was contributed upon from, from the rest, from the wider community. She's getting full credit for this. They actually appealed to the author of the Twilight books to say, like, can't you sue her?  Like given it started off of Twilight and the court actually ruled that there was no case because it had drifted far enough from the original source material. So unfortunately the fan fiction community kind of actually just dispersed after that, like that event killed the fan fiction community and we don't really see it anymore. With the exception of the, you know, like their platforms called Wattpad, et cetera, where it's just people really purely trying to write fan fiction on their own, but there is no more collaborative fan fiction. You really only see collaborative storytelling now on really niche internet communities. And mostly Reddit, others like that. Now let's get into Creative Commons. Creative Commons is a really cool concept. It's a nonprofit that extends a license for IP to be used freely and for those who use it to just to be able to use IP freely and create whatever they want off of it, but they have to credit all the original creators. So the most famous example of the Creative Commons license is Dungeons and Dragons and whether or not, whether or not you know what Dungeons and Dragons is, you've surely heard of that. It is a massive gaming brand and anyone at any time can just adopt the Creative Commons license and make any IP from Dungeons and Dragons. There's actually this show on Prime video called Vox Lux, which is just an independently produced television show about a Dungeons and Dragons game that a bunch of people played together that people started to like so much that it wound up becoming a TV series. So what is the problem with Creative Commons though? So there actually have been some problems that have led it to let it away from being as prevalent as it could be. So one, using the Creative Commons license requires attributing all the authors of the original creative works, and be convenient, inconvenient when you're leveraging works that are based on multiple other, based on a whole chain of other people's works. So like a lot of people have just, a lot of people have argued that it will just erode creativity to do this because people in creating something have to trace down who all the authors are, they have to credit them, they have to get their permission, et cetera. Then critics have also worried that there's no obligation, the Creative Commons license doesn't provide any sort of requirements to kick back revenue to the original creators. So they thought that with people are just, if there's a system where people are going to be creating stuff and having other people building on their work and not being paid for it, it's just going to degrade trust and people aren't going to want to be putting their works out there. And then finally, there's no central database of Creative Commons works that's controlling. So really just if you want to leverage someone else's work, it's completely on you to enforce the contract on one side, and it's on the other person to trace down whoever it is. Like this is just simply a legal framework that can be extended. There's no, there's absolutely no central database. So granted that now we're 20 minutes in, and I've been talking about the entertainment industry, and I haven't even touched on blockchain yet. Let's get into the reason why we're here. How does this whole problem get solved by blockchain? And that is through tokenized IP. So everything that I just talked about is solvable through blockchain. And as I've been discussing with Brett over the last couple of weeks, we are, we are on the absolute beginning and we haven't even seen the beginning of this revolution yet. This is where blockchain is heading. And this is what I personally have been trying to figure out as much as possible to map out where it's going. We're already seeing investments in startups in this space, you know, like start to pop up. But the way that blockchain can, can play into solving this problem is that a lot of people think, and I'm going to assume that this community, if you're here in the first place, you're at least somewhat up to date on what blockchain is. So there's so many people out there that still think that when they hear the blockchain about the term blockchain, all they think about is, oh, a system to overthrow the banks and the governments. That is actually just what that's just the, the fun narrative that sort of, you know, has, that it's been spun into all blockchain exists to do is to eliminate the need for trust in systems. And what do we have here? We have a system that actually works between creative commons and collaborative storytelling. What it is missing is trust. And frankly, there's also the other part of the ability to seamlessly pay revenues to, to actually automate a revenue stream and take the sort of hassle out of, out of paying royalties and whatnot. But blockchain does both of those things. So what you can do with a, what you can do with blockchain is you can, you can create a system. You know what, in order to actually tell you how to do it, I'm just going to show you this illustrative view. I know it's like a little bit crude, but this, because I threw it together, but I want to give you rather than sort of just explain to you technically under the hood, how tokenized IP can help this system. I just want to show you an illustrative example of how something like this would work. So basically, let's just say on Reddit, on Twitter, this can really be absolutely anything. I've just wrote written short story in the first bucket, but it could be absolutely anything. This could be like a piece of art. This could be a picture and this does happen, right? There's actually, you know, I won't get too deep into the details of specific examples, just because they get boring sometimes when people don't know them, but there is an online store, story called the back rooms. It's basically, it's this concept of, of liminal spaces. It all started on 4chan. When somebody posted this picture of what looks like a creepy empty office room with like, with weird dim yellow lights and absolutely no windows. And the story is basically if you walk, you know, through the crack of a sidewalk wrong, you'll no clip into the back rooms. And it has become, and the only way to get out is to play through its levels. And this has become a massive online collaborative story that you can see it on, it spans all channels from tick talk to Reddit to the internet, et cetera. And so to the rest of the internet. And it actually served as the inspiration for the Apple TV plus show, Severance. And they, I read an interview with the creator, they seek to, they seek to credit the creator. There was absolutely no way to find it. There's just, there was no documentation of this whole thing. Imagine if these writers who are sitting online and we're sitting online and just adding to something that was actually being consumed by tons of people to the extent that it was actually, that it was actually inspiring an Apple TV plus show. Imagine if they could get a little bit of kickback for that. And also a writing credit on a major studio produce show on their resume, right? There is a huge, huge barrier to entry in the writing industry these days. There is, I think how many of us there, you know, like I have this discussion in this debate with people all the time. Is there a content shortage? I think that especially during times like this, like this writer strike, it is undoubted that there is a content shortage because the Netflix's of the world have nothing to buy and nothing getting made. But in general, I think that there is, you know, I, a lot of, I do a lot of sort of like side of desk work to actually try and put numbers to this content shortage, but people always want to, people always want to watch screen entertainment. And right now it is just, it's really hard to become a writer. It's really hard to become a writer. It's really hard to become a writer. Anyhow, I'm going to get into this. I'm going to get into this example. So. This is an upgrade of your power. So first somebody, creator number one writes a short story. And in writing that short story there, that is actually minted as an NFT on the blockchain. So again, NFTs are sort of like thought of as monkey pictures. That's not what they are. An NFT literally just means a token on the blockchain that is, it's a story. It's something, it's more than just something that's interchangeable for something else. So that is minted onto the blockchain. There is now a permanent immutable record of that creator actually putting, actually putting the short story online. Creator two comes around and says, Hey, that's really cool. I want to add to this story. They mint another NFT that has to inherit all the characteristics from the short story. I mean, I'm essentially, for those of you who know programming, I'm talking about Java classes, but for creative writing. Then, and you must inherit it. And you must inherit it from the first notch in the story. And that's, and yeah, when, when you inherit it, it, it's like the same, the same immutable record is minted. Then we get to creator three and four. These guys actually come up with their own, and these, each of these two guys come up with their entries into the series. And they're different though, like they actually branch in two different directions. Now we get down to creators five, six and seven. I didn't realize those are on other lines. These guys, you got creator five who's a fan of creator three's work. And then you have creator six and seven who weren't such a fan of creator three's work, but they really liked creator four's work. So they start building on that. Then we finally get to the bottom. And this is where a system like this really comes into play. So let's talk about these two types of, these two types of end consumers differently. First, we have curators. And when it's, when I talk about curators, I'm talking about film studios. Imaginal right now. The way that Disney works is, you know, and I keep using Disney as an example, but I could use any Disney owns all of their IP. So the way that they really retain control over their businesses is that they own the IP that they, that all the IP that they make entertainment off of. And this, you know, a lot of people say that the problem, the current problems in the entertainment industry are called by, you know, servitors taking too big of margins or et cetera, that the real monopoly lies in IP ownership. There is IP, as we talked about, is a low cost and extremely high margin margin commodity. And it is the type of, it is the type of property that all of its creators should be benefited for. And nobody should be forced to take a full buyout. So if we, by decentralizing IP and actually creating a framework for it to be owned and for it to be identified, who all the creators in the, going through the chain are, and actually to be able to have it also built in that there are royalty, how the royalties flow through that is, that can solve a lot of the current problems. It can make it a lot more beneficial, right? Some, a kid who is in Wisconsin in his parents' basement without any connections to Hollywood, but at the same time with, with really strong writing talents who wants to make it, can sit there and write a short story and actually get a credit on a Hollywood film. And maybe even get some royalties too, right? Like we, we acknowledge that there are certain things that are always going to be there. They're always going to be in balance. The curators are always the studios. It's going to take a while to topple over. It's not like we can completely displace them out of the system, but at least have a system in place that automates an easier way to, that automates an easier way to share revenue and to actually properly credit. Then we get into the topic of AI. When it comes to AI, this is a huge, huge problem driving in part the writer strike right now is people don't want AI taking their jobs. The truth is AI is probably inevitable. I mean, these systems just work so well. There's no reason for us not to use them. But having said all that, AI doesn't just come out of nowhere. AI is actually trained off of inputs. And there should be a way to know if an AI is creating, every AI that is creating something that even presents the possibility to take a human's job is trained off of a human's work. So it's the same thing. A system like this could also be used to identify and keep trust, keep track of what, what creative material, what IP and AI has been trained off of. So essentially where, you know, this is sort of like, my plan here is to actually open up the floor and to have people really drill the topic in and let me know where you want to know more, I can provide more examples, et cetera. But the, the concept here is just that, you know, we within blockchain, we have an opportunity to attribute and automatically provide royalties. And obviously lawyers will still be, will still be needed. You know, this, this isn't just like, this isn't a built-in solution. Revenue models will probably be different and revenue share will be different. You know, the first question you'd likely ask is, how do you decide the weighting of something like this?  Like there's going to need to be real lawyers involved. It's still, it's still IP, but this is a framework for, this is a framework for creating more trust and creating more opportunity and more visibility and more credit. I mean, it's attribution. And most of all, it removes the need for trust from, from collaborative storytelling. It actually allows collaborative storytelling to happen. The exact problems that happened when 50 shades of gray killed the fan fiction community. It can bring, it can allow that, you know, we have proof there of a viable, just completely collaborative, decentralized community that actually produced something with incredibly strong market viability that not only was a best selling book, but also adapted to a movie. Like we have proof of that. So let's just bring trust back into it. And that's all blockchain is in this situation, right? We go back to this framework. And that's what we're just talking about here up, up until here, up until this, up until the red circle, like this, this already happens, but it has been, as we said, creative commons is a great concept, but we don't have the ability to track and trace the way that you actually need to, which, which hinders people's ability to actually leverage the license and collaborative storytelling requires trust, which is killed because too often one person takes the credit for many people's work and they have absolutely no way to prove it. And then from there, that can be, that's leveraged by studios that are leveraged by curators. Let's just say, and they develop it into a whole bunch of different across a whole bunch of different channels in order to build love for that IP. And that isn't a modern entertainment company. And this is where, yeah, this is just, this is the new value chain. And we just add one more thing to it so that we can actually really make use of this fourth bucket. I'll take a pause there. You know, I hope I didn't go too much into mad scientist mode and that that was coherent. But yeah, feel free like please just, just grill me even if you are skeptical, like, like ask, ask questions, say whatever you want. Let's, you know, this is like a speculative topic. So let's test it right now. Jay, there are, there are no skeptics in the group. There are no skeptics in blockchain. Pretty awesome. So far that we're getting a little bit of feedback in the, in the chat here, but I, I brought up a couple of questions for you. Let me give you the first one here so we can spin this off. You know what, leave that, can you leave that, that, that diagram you have up there? I mean, I think that's pretty good. It really gets people thinking about what we have going on here. Absolutely here. Let me put it back up. Sorry. No, no, no. Okay. Off of two screens here. Okay. That last slide. Yep. All right. Here we go. Okay, great. The next one. Oh yeah. And I'm just going to pop the chat back. There we go. Beautiful. So the. My first question. Given your experience in entertainment. And your experience with. Deloitte. Seeing the, the practical side of things and seeing the. The impractical side of things. You know, it's a perfect world in, in, in consulting. It, it always does. It's like, it's a perfect world in legal, you know, there's, it's cut and dry. It's black and white. It's a perfect world. The entertainment industry is the furthest thing from black and white you can get. Trust is something that that is always in the back of people's mind. So how difficult is it going to be. To get the industry to trust this new technology. And how long do you think it's going to take? Like how many iterations of whatever it is we build. Do we have to go through before people say, you know what, that works for, are we going to get. the industry, regardless of how efficient we make it. Go ahead. Yeah. Okay. So I'll like, let me answer that question from two angles. Because I think there's two elements to trust. One is the actual legality of it. So I mean, what I can tell you within Deloitte Canada, where I work, we are currently working with the Department of Finance. It's one of our engagements to help them develop a regulatory frame, a framework for regulating the crypto and digital assets industry. What I can tell you just from through that engagement is this is going to be, this entire market is going to become legal. Scams within it are not going to be legal, but digital assets and tokenization, it is all coming. The governments are, it has been plain and simply acknowledged at this point that the truth of the matter, which is the Bitcoin and Ethereum networks have reached full decentralization and governments have two choices, have a legal market or a black market. So as far as that goes, and I know this is the really light side of it, trust will come through the fact that regulatory frameworks are going to be drafted. And even despite the fact that the US is lagging a little bit behind the EU, Australia, UK, et cetera, it'll happen very soon. And furthermore, right now we're talking about the world of NFTs and NFTs aren't even in scope yet. Even with the markets in crypto act that the EU just released, it's the first piece of regulation for crypto that's been actually passed through and will be entering force. It doesn't even, NFTs aren't in scope yet. So this area is actually a free for all for a bit. I'm just going to jump on to the other side of trust, which is consumer trust. What I can say from consulting from my experience is that business trust is actually secondary and less important to consumer trust. Our engagements come through when a would be client or a would be client notices that their consumers are demanding blockchain enabled products. So to me, to answer that simple question, what is required for industry trust? One, it has to be legal, which is already happening. And two, the use cases have to be viable. We're like in an early stage where crypto is just a casino now. I think that gaming and entertainment are really the easiest places because it's for the easiest places for trust to be built because it is a place where you can experience an intangible that is traded for a tangible. It's a perfect example of how you balance the idea of an unbacked crypto with value on the other side. Ideas are tangible. So getting into jumping over to video gaming, let's look at call of duty.  So in virtual worlds where your possessions are already virtual, you have utility and we get to story writing. So for me, I really like collaborative storytelling as an early area of as an early use case where this can really thrive because these communities already exist and they require trust. And there's a really low barrier to entry for them. For them, they just need to be able to trust each other. And if what builds that trust is blockchain, then they trust blockchain. So I know I rambled a bit there. I hope that was a sufficient sort of answer. But yeah, feel free to in the chat to tell me if you want to hear more. I also saw a question about and I'm just trying to get my chat back up. So we have the legal community learning and on board about this new trust model. Yes, we actually do. I mean, for all I know, there's IP lawyers in this room. This is actually a very simple topic. We are literally just talking about the Creative Commons license, which already exists, just giving it a little more automation. Just taking an already existing legal framework and like that's public and just giving it giving it some more some more what's the word strength some more like some more power. So that's all this is. I'm looking at the best what's the best way to get storytellers to understand the opportunity and how to apply the tools and techniques of blockchain. Yes, okay. So there's two ways to do it. One is and this is the same for absolutely everything we've discussed that we'll ever discuss in blockchain. Blockchain needs to be tucked under the hood. Like unless you're working in payments, you don't know about how Swift enables cross-border payments. When you tap your credit card and pay at the and pay at the grocery store or like at your corner store, you know, you're not asking whether this is being powered by Shopify or by like, you know, or by FedNow or Fedwire or the Visa or Mastercard network, right? Like rails are tucked trust and payment rails need to be tucked under the hood. So that's first off.  Like, and I think we all agree that that's got to go away at some point and it's going to. And what's the best way to get storytellers to understand the opportunity? So, you know, this is an interesting question because it's delicate and it's going to require trial and error. Like there is, so there's on Reddit, I, you know, this, there's this like community that I love. It's, it started based on a short story. It's called Mystery Flesh Pit National Park.  And there's been a theme, a theme park built inside. And this grew into a giant collaborative online story where you had the most talented designers, like creating just the, the animal, the species and fauna that grow inside this like giant, organic mass. And it's just like, these are, these people are so beyond smart. You have people creating like open source video games, et cetera. So one of the ways to do something like this would be to go to an existing community like that and say, Hey, do you want to transplant your community into here? Now, of course it goes without saying that there's a non zero chance that for a lot of the people in this community, sort of making it a little more about credit and giving the opportunity to monetize it could actually destroy it. Like there's just, there's some communities that will die in the, in the, in the event of trying, of putting them into an environment that exists for the purpose of allowing it to be like competitive and purchased by curators. But for the, all you need is just one good story on there, right? Like all you need is just and like something like the back rooms you couldn't put on there. There's too many people. You'd have to trace them all back. It would kill the process. So you do need to just find a young community and, and convince them to come over to put their story on.  Like the point of the story is that everybody is, you know, there's massive communities doing this already that for free. So why not give them the opportunity to benefit off of it? I can't say if I don't, if you don't know, or actually I see plenty of angles, past legals, but actually I say, I just want a company to work for it and mostly blockchain must come under higher restrictions. Yeah, fair enough. And I saw you put another question earlier. I thought of a game plot that's the basis, then build a new comic strip romance. Exactly. So on what you said earlier, like something like this, you would actually be able to put that on them and create as many new, like, you know, upload your story, upload your comic onto the blockchain, have it minted there. And the, and people could actually just build onto it, right? Everybody hits writer's block. Like story writing is collaborative. There's a whole bunch of, you know, there's, there's just like within writing rooms, within like just look at any studio films. So you have these Fox films, these, you know, the DC, the DC sort of cinematic universe has become a bit of a laughing stock just because it's narrative structure has fallen apart. And like this is the type of thing where if we, if we can start with a system like this, this is sort of a model for true disruptive innovation, right? Like we talk about disruptive innovation as being a company, a new, a new entrance to the market targets the low end fit footholds of the market who don't want to pay for something. So Netflix came in and that's sorry, and that the incumbent doesn't care to serve because they're not valuable enough. So Netflix came in and said, we are going to blockbuster exists, but they charge late fees. We are going to shut, we're going to target the portion of the market that doesn't want to pay late fees. And they're, they're willing to trade off for something. They're willing to trade off and not have access to the newest movies. And then over time, the disruptor grows and actually envelops the incumbent. And then the incumbent experiences the innovators dilemma, which is, do we turn around and actually put the time and resources into building what our disruptor has, or do we just try and continue with our business model? And most of the time, once a company is already facing the innovators dilemma, unless the, unless the disruptor slips up, they're pretty much done by that point. And so in this case, what we are talking about in a disruptive model like this is that a company comes in and starts targeting the people who, who aren't, who are just using the most free, simple form of entertainment, like text and image stories online. And we test it out on that market.  I mean, and if it can, it benefits all of its creators, but really it just over time we create a new model where IP is a decentralized entity. And everything else is you have these companies working together around it who all specialized film companies become film production companies, TV production companies become TV production companies. The Disney's of the world aren't even worried about trying to, and the Netflix's aren't trying to worry about launching video game studios in-house. They're just plain and simply like someone else is out, a video game studio is out there partaking in the IP and just building the value of this IP and this franchise on their own. And it's really just a win-win situation for everybody. You know, this model is not about disrupting the big content creators. It's actually just about raising the tide for everyone at once, but especially for the creators, because right now it's really hard for them to break in, right? Like, you can't just get a credit on a Disney show by having a good idea. But in this model, you can. Like, and so it's such as should be the case. So yeah, I mean, yeah, exhausting trans media value.  Does that make sense? Hey, Jay, tell me, how much pressure do you think the studios and the the industry participants that would be most affected negatively by this sort of a collaborative approach to IP? How much pressure could they exert on the technology not being adopted? In your opinion, what, what do you, what do you feel the the dark side of, of, of bringing transparency to transparency and equality to this whole, to certain aspects or certain components to the industry? But see, I don't know if this is a non answer, but the way I see it, like, these communities are going to build, like, they're going to build out of view of the studios, like by the time the studios even know they exist, it will be because there is a story with a fanbase, the level of Game of Thrones, that has just emerged online, and that has a completely that's been written in a decentralized manner, but which has like a full, which has a full record of ownership and creation. I, and at that point, yeah, sure, the studios can choose to say, you know, like, there will be an interesting moment in time to observe, which will be like, could we ever hit a point where Disney is in a position where they have the ability to create where this whole new giant franchise has, has emerged, Disney has the ability to create it, but they have to stray outside of their, out of their model of, if you stray outside of their model of owning all the IP that they build, or they have to pay a pretty penny for it to actually bring it in, which involves hiring all the writers on it, which actually is great. So I mean, to me, like, to me, by the time, if you have a massive, like entertainment conglomerate actually taking notice of this, it can only be a good thing, because either competition is fully enforced, or they are acquiring it, and we're bringing in, and the model works, and we're actually bringing, we're using decentralized storytelling to just bring more creators into the, into the actual industry. We have a question here from Etienne. How do you incentivize creators to contribute to IP, create a credit, and dollars? That's interesting. Yeah. So I mean, this is an interesting one, because depending on who does it and how, there's tons of different possible models. What I'm just going to say to keep the same answer simple right now is, right now, in these collaborative storytelling communities, they're doing it for free with no credit. So what, you know, what will incentivize creators? Anything more than that, literally anything more than that.  And, and, or maybe there's no money involved at all, but they're, they get to have a credit on something and their resume gets to be better.  And in this case, like just you incentivize them by making it exactly what they're doing, but just like even so much as a shred more of incentive all the way up to, all the way up to like getting, getting like a full credit on a Hollywood movie with a big paycheck and, and like, you know, and your career actually launched in Hollywood through this. Good answer. Good answer. Tell me the, is there, for those creators that are going to be, that are on Zoom currently or going to watch it down the road, are there any really reputable collaborative sites? I mean, you're talking about Reddit, but is there any place that you would recommend that would be a, or you could suggest, can you give us something in the chat there that, that you like for, for collaborative storytelling and something that people could start to contribute and maybe we could look at approaching in terms of doing a pilot on, on doing some IP stuff on blockchain with some of these groups. Have you got a recommendation of a popular or a suite of popular sites?  Like there is, there's a sub Reddit called r slash world building. Like this is, it's sort of, you know, this was cruising this particular subreddit was actually what really inspired me to hold this in the first place. Like it's kind of exactly what I described and people will tag the actual world they're talking about and they'll introduce some art. Someone will just come in and say, here's a map that I created that I came up with for a mystical land, like some kind of Lord of the Rings type thing. It is, it is notable that fantasy and science fiction are like really the areas where this thrives, where this, where these communities thrive the most. Excellent. I'm looking at Eric is contributing here quite a bit in the chat. Some good stuff, Eric. The, just looking at, at PI, Eric has a blog space for multiple post stories, what to tell. I did put a, I did put a link to the the Mystery Flesh Pit National Park in the chat for anybody that on the Reddit, the World Building site. So that's in there. That's pretty good. Do we have any other questions from the, from the Zoom? Well, I mean, I guess I hope everyone was, I hope people here were able to take something from this. Can we maybe get some, you know, there are no questions. Maybe some, let me, like, you know, let me know, just writing the chat, like, did people find this interesting? Was this like, was this useful? Was this, did people glean insight out of this? Was it, was it delivered in a way that was sort of like, how did it come across to actual blockchain natives? Because, you know, it is funny, this is a topic that, what, what chain is focus? Oh, yeah, here, my LinkedIn, here, I'll post my LinkedIn here. It's on the thing. What chain is focus? Honestly, this is like, it's chain agnostic, right? Like, you could have an entire custom chain, like that's a fork of anything or a custom chain that's like, this could be its own network, it could be an entire network that's just like, you know, IP focus, or you could just as easily have like, I don't know, like, it could be on Ethereum, like, there's actually, I would say there's, you know, this is almost a use case where, there's almost a use case where Ethereum actually makes sense, right? Because the high transaction fees will incentivize, like only posting stuff that you are really confident in. But then again, could be Polygon, or as we're here today, could be Hyperledger on a permission network where there's actually, like, you know, there's an operating model that allows for no gas fees. And when needed, allows you to bridge off into EVM or EVM competitor networks. But really, you know, like, I do think a permission network like Hyperledger is a great place for something like this to live. And we'll have no, we'll have no, we'll have no issues interoperating with the other chains, public or other private chains. So that's the goal. The goal would be to build something on fabric, Hyperledger fabric, and using the connectors to take some of it out into the public world of blockchain. So, and payments, etc. That's going to be something that needs to be, needs to be discussed and obviously hashed out with the industry. They don't want to have to get involved in, in dealing with some of the intricacies of legal payments, etc, etc. But for sure, all of the chains that, you know, can be, this can, this can be applicable to all the chains, I agree, 100%. Yeah. And I mean, you know, like obviously stable value too, like, like, if we're looking at least a amount of friction to adoption, then we'd want to be looking at like stable coin payments, right? Like some, some, an area where $1 equals $1 as opposed to, but that's a whole other topic for a whole other day. I kind of like intentionally left the legality of payments aspect out of this, but it is half of what I work on day to day. So I couldn't talk anyone to your off about that, but we'll save that for another day. That's, that's a good point to move off here, Jay. Let's start talking about doing an actual presentation on your, your skill in that side of the industry, because I think that's going to be very interesting. So let's go, you and I offline and talk a little bit about what our next, what our next event will be. And we'll ask everyone to, to follow our LinkedIn page, connect with Jay on LinkedIn and prepare for the next event and whatever else we, we have in store to work on together. I'm looking forward to it. Anything else from anyone there and Jay, go ahead. Oh no, I was just gonna say I just dropped my LinkedIn in the chat. But yeah, anything else? I'm good. We're, we're pushing our hour here. Jay, I want to thank you so much. It was a phenomenal presentation and I know that, that everybody that was in here enjoyed it for sure. My pleasure. Yeah. Thank you so much for having me. And yeah, like I said, just follow up if there's absolutely anything you want to talk about anybody, you know, this, this is like, this is not a pitch. This is not anything. This is just me, like trying to inspire all the people building in this community because I'm passionate about this use case. So reach out to me if you want to talk about it because, because, you know, that's the reason why we're here. I'll attest to that. Jay is demonstrating clear, your motivations are admirable and I appreciate that. So we look forward to working with you and everybody this, this is being recorded. It'll be on the hyper ledger website in their YouTube with probably within the next couple of hours. So you'll have a look and we'll send a link out onto our LinkedIn page to the video. Everyone have a great day, Jay. Thank you again. It was good to see you. It was a great presentation. Thanks so much. Have a great day. Yep. Bye everyone. Have a great day. Thanks so much, Brett. And Brett, thank you so much for the invite and for hosting. All right. Take care, Jay.


Meanwhile, Asewajibola Tinubu has promised to engage in regular consultations with the Niger Delta leaders to facilitate the formulation of policies and initiatives that will enhance the region's development. He spoke in Oporosa Baramotu Kingdom, in the presence of traditional rulers led by the pair of Baramotu Kingdom, his Royal Highness Oboro Baram II. Of the meeting, the APC presidential candidate bagged the second traditional title, the Yale Away of Baramotu, meaning the torch bearer of the Kingdom. We won't be far away from you. We will carry you alone. We will consult with you regularly. Our brothers here, we embrace them for the development of the area, the community of Baramotu, the associated community, economic development main progress job for our youths. He promised tomorrow there is something, a renewed hope is here standing before you with the support of God Almighty, that you will live long, you will live with prosperity. To defy one of the biggest challenges we face here in the riverine kingdom of Baramotu is access to the hinterland, access to the mainland, that we need to have this kingdom preached to the mainland. That is a request that has been made to the incoming president of the Federal Republic. It is a request that I, by God's grace your next governor, a request I will pursue. I have endorsed that request and I will pursue that request with the incoming president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Hello. Hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.