Search the archive.

With respect to internal explanations, the effects of income inequality and ethnic diversity are presented in Table 3. Models 3.1 and 3.2 indicate that neither directly affects chauvinism. H4 is therefore not supported. The results suggest, however, that both have a negative effect on the national-identification slopes. Contrary to our expectations, countries with higher levels of economic and ethnic division appear to exhibit a weaker relation between national identification and chauvinism. While these findings might seem to contradict H5, the pattern was caused by outliers. After excluding South Africa—the most unequal and ethnic diverse country in our sample—the effect of ethnic diversity is not even of borderline significance. After excluding Chile—the most unequal country in our sample—the interaction effects for economic inequality were also far from significant. The results, therefore, do not support H5.21

<<TABLE 3 OMITTED>>

Despite its appeal, this view betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of political violence. Historically, the academic literature on the causes of civil war was divided into two categories: Some scholars viewed such conflicts as a predictable outcome whenever there were deep grievances within national populations, while others stressed the importance of citizens having an opportunity to act on those resentments. Much of the discussion about violence in the United States today centers, implicitly, on the grievance model, holding that if we know how much different tribes of Americans hate each other, we can predict the likelihood of fighting in the streets.

But scholars now prefer the opportunity model, thanks to large-scale studies that examine political violence worldwide with cutting-edge statistical methods. Grievances and societal cleavages exist everywhere, waiting to be exploited. What distinguishes the countries that descend into civil war from those that do not is the lack of state capacity to put down rebellion — for reasons rooted in politics, economics or geography.

He describes the present as a time of volatility, complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity, a time of global crises including an economic or financial crisis, a climate crisis accompanied by plastic soup in the ocean and large-scale extinction of species, social inequality and the associated polarization of societies fuelled by social media and fake news, food scarcity, and the looming disappearance of jobs due to AIs robotics, blockchain, etc. A rather dire outlook at best. Yet the mindset of Society 5.0 might provide for a less pessimistic outcome. This view is shared by other social scientists and holds that the online society brings about an era of growing complexity of the social system, extension of networks, increased digitisation but also increased connectedness. These features of Society 5.0 demonstrate the onset of the era of digital society [9]. Millennials form the largest part of this society as described in more detail towards the end of the paper.

Proponents believe that DAOs will completely redefine corporate leadership and how it functions. Rather than a small board of directors or executive team deciding on everything for a business, organizations can invite all employees to share leadership tokens and make decisions regarding the company’s future.

DAOs have the power to impact the workplace by democratizing leadership and giving employees greater control over the future of their collective companies. I believe this could be a great thing for workers’ rights and income levels. Companies, after all, profit off of the labor of workers and workers deserve to be compensated appropriately.

Low-Wage Workers Real median wages in the United States have remained stagnant for 50 years, while the economy as a whole has grown by 20 times.3 And for workers in the bottom quintile, pay has actually declined.4 Meanwhile, benefits and working conditions have degraded even further. In part, this is because of the growth in the gig economy, which classifies its workers as independent contractors without legal labor protections.5 But another significant factor is the increased concentration of corporate power among a few large companies, leading to a monopsony labor market in which large employers have enough sway to dictate terms to their workers.6 Historically, this pressure is counteracted through action from the labor movement. And recent years have, in fact, seen sizable increases in attempts at organization, with strikes in 2021 reaching a high not seen in 40 years.7 But because of the expansion in corporate power along with the decentralization of work, these efforts have been largely ineffective.8 These trends are only accelerating; a new check on worker exploitation not only is necessary, but would provide a meaningful competitive advantage over traditional firms in attracting labor supply. RECOMMENDATIONS This policy brief recommends that accelerators experiment with funding worker-led DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations). The details of this structure and its advantages follow. Structure of Worker-Led DAOs A DAO is a business whose central operations are governed democratically on the blockchain. In a typical DAO, the organization’s treasury is stored as cryptocurrency on the blockchain, and dispersal of those funds is subject to approval from a majority of the community. This ensures that democracy is technically ingrained, rather than nominally or legally enforced. POLICY 4 The particular worker-led DAO structure proposed here has 2 tiers, splitting the 2 traditional ownership rights of voting on board-level decisions and receiving a share of future profits. First, votes on corporate governance are handled through worker democracy on the blockchain, using the DAO itself. Second, shares of future profits are issued through a traditional legal corporate entity, separate from the blockchain, associated with the DAO (see Appendix A for illustration). This is analogous to the split between “common” and “preferred” shares in founder-led companies, but the rights to vote and the rights to future profits are issued by different, linked entities. The arrangement preserves the democratic commitment and agility of the DAO, while providing access to the established law around limited liability, taxation, and securities for corporations. The DAO should be structured such that each worker receives a single governance token, entitling them to an equal vote along with all other employees (see Appendix B for illustration). This voting right can be exercised only for high-level governance, such as electing board members. Voting does not come with any rights to future dividends; if founders wish to give equity grants to employees or themselves, they may still issue restricted units of preferred stock. Founders also may set a cliff for issuance of the governance token, holding off until an employee has been with the company for some set period. The legal entity housing the DAO can be a normal corporation, with voting rights for board seats reserved in the by-laws to the DAO. This forgoes the tax benefits offered in some states to organizations registered as official worker cooperatives, but it drastically lowers the legal burden of both establishing the entity and later accepting investment. Investors will receive preferred stock, which entitles them to a share of future dividends but no meaningful voting rights, as is the case in many founder-led companies. (Any organization that is interested in implementing such a model should consult with their attorneys on further implementation details.) POLICY 5 Advantages of Worker-Led DAOs This model of embedding a DAO into traditional corporations has several advantages over both traditional start-ups and other worker-led alternative structures. The advantages of being worker-led, over traditional start-ups: Worker-led businesses are long-term oriented and can prioritize values. Unlike public market investors (who can liquidate their stakes anytime) or executives (who often receive very large equity grants), workers are numerous enough that they must rely on an ongoing paycheck rather than a single, large lump sum. Because the distance between the floor and the ceiling of a worker’s pay (i.e., between their standard wage and a full cash-out, split among all peers) is so narrow, it is financially optimal for them to stay at the company as long as possible, rather than attempting to frontload gains. Workers’ profit-maximizing strategy thus relies on their employer’s stability over a longer timescale. In addition, they aren’t bound by the shareholder value doctrine, which requires corporate profit maximization above all else. So not only are they legally able to overlook short-term profit opportunities if they conflict with their own values, but they are actually financially pressured to do so; they will be forced to feel the eventual business impact of the reputational damage and possible regulatory response those moves reap, in time.9 Worker-led businesses are more efficient. As has been well established in the scientific literature, workers have more information about day-to-day operations than investors.10 In worker-led businesses, these data are more often surfaced and applied by leadership to make core processes more efficient, increasing productivity relative to their investor-led peers.11 Worker-led businesses can attract better talent. Not only do they generally offer better financial terms to workers, but the very fact of democratic input on the direction of the company is an important benefit to many potential employees.12 And since technology companies increasingly rely on exceptional talent as the biggest differentiator over their competitors, this can because a significant handicap for non-worker-led businesses.13 POLICY 6 Worker-led businesses are better for workers. Perhaps this goes without saying, but worker-led businesses that follow the structure laid out above pay better, have better working conditions, and allow employee input on the direction of the company.14 This is a competitive advantage, but it is also straightforwardly better for workers. And as today’s start-ups become tomorrow’s Uber, Lyft, and Amazon, it can be a large step toward remedying the mounting pressure on low-wage workers generally. The advantages of a DAO, over other worker-led structures: A DAO has better access to capital. Many of the traditional forms of worker-led businesses involve artificially limiting investor returns (literally capping them at a certain multiple) or preventing any possibility of future sale of shares on the secondary market (only allowing them to be sold back to the company).15 This often comes with an ideological commitment to remain small and avoid rapid growth — hence this dismissal of investors’ interests, since their capital is unnecessary. But a DAO, linked to a standard corporation, allows investment on terms that venture capitalists (VCs) are accustomed to; the only difference is that they cede control to a democratic body of workers rather than to the founders, which many VCs may well prefer. And the novel technology inherent in a DAO makes it a more promising potential growth opportunity. A DAO has simple, settled governance. Typically, worker-led businesses spend a significant amount of time fleshing out the logistical details of how the company will be structured and run. This is not only distracting but also expensive, due to the extensive legal work involved.16 By relying on established DAO technology for the logistics and simple by-laws adjustments for the legal framework, this model reduces those burdens to a minimum

Over the past five decades, growing wage inequality has been one of the defining features of the American economy. Since the late 1970s, inflation-adjusted pay for most U.S. workers has largely stagnated, while pay for the country’s highest earners has skyrocketed. This sluggish wage growth for middle-income Americans has been widely acknowledged and recognized by economists and politicians across the political spectrum. Yet, the root causes of these trends have frequently been wrongly attributed as an unfortunate result of apolitical market forces that one neither can nor would want to alter, such as automation and globalization. In fact, disappointing wage growth for most workers in the U.S. economy was not an unintended consequence—it was the intentional outcome of legislative, regulatory, and corporate policies deliberately implemented to constrain labor costs, decisions made on behalf of the rich and corporations and validated by many economists.

Bargaining power is the central though often unspoken determinant of wage outcomes. Generations of economics students have been taught that markets efficiently set wages through supply and demand and that an individual worker’s pay reflects their productivity. This naive textbook model assumes that employees and employers have equal bargaining power, that any worker being underpaid relative to the value they produce for a firm can simply quit and find a better-paying option. But this perfect textbook market is the exception, not the rule. Employers almost always have disproportionate bargaining power, and for much of the last half-century, public policy has been shaped to ensure that outcome. 

The relationship between India and the U.S. has not been as strong as it needs to be, Indian-American Congressman Shri Thanedar has said, vowing that he will work to strengthen economic ties that benefit both countries and help enhance cooperation between their people. Mr. Thanedar, 67, represents the 13th Congressional District of Michigan, which mainly comprises parts of Detroit and its suburbs. He was sworn in as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives early this month. He became the fifth Indian-American to be in the current Congress, joining four others: Dr. Ami Bera, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ro Khanna and Pramila Jayapal. “I think historically, this (India-U.S. relationship) has not been as strong a relationship as it needs to be. We are the two biggest democracies. India has a huge economic power. India now has the leadership of G-20,” Mr. Thanedar told PTI.

Global warming is likely to have unimaginable disruptions in every aspect of human life by 2050 if some actions are not taken immediately to reduce its fast acceleration. Since the Industrial Revolution (1900s), the global mean surface temperature has warmed up approximately +0.8 °C (1.4 °F) due to past and ongoing human-induced emissions of greenhouse gasses as a result of burning of fossil fuels. Scientists and environmentalists warn that if nothing is done in the next decade to deal with climate changes, the global warming may accelerate to around 1.5 °C by 2050, which may lead to climate changes with catastrophic consequences. Blockchain is not confined to cryptocurrencies and can help reduce current levels of human-produced carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide resulting from activities involving factory farming, livestock farming, and deforestation which are releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gases that suffocate the atmosphere. This paper looks at blockchain and our planet by examining how blockchain revolutionary technology could be harnessed to address global warming challenges related to the planetary systems (e.g. PwC, 2018). An incontrovertible evidence clearly shows that a planetary-scale warming is happening and it is with us now; since the Industrial Revolution (1900s), increased human economic activities and the resultant surge in burning fossil fuels have triggered a gradual and steady increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, this in turn has thickened the infrared radiation layer in the atmosphere causing the Earth to trap more of the heat. In the past before 1970s, the planet has been able to adapt to the concentration levels of corban dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (i.e. greenhouse gases); however the Earth’s average surface temperature has been increasing since mid-1970s (but at an accelerated pace since the late 1990s) beyond the Earth’s natural ability to adapt to (i.e. the Earth’s temperature has warmed up by +0.8 °C or 1.4 °F in the past century, see NCDC, 2004; RS & NAS, 2014). If we possibly can reduce human activities and their emissions of greenhouse gases through blockchain deployment in all applicable sectors including but not limited to agriculture (i.e. factory and livestock farming in particular), energy, financial services, health care, and many services currently provided by local, state, or federal government authorities; we may actually have a real opportunity to reduce further concentrations (above and beyond normal levels) of CO2 and other harmful greenhouse gasses to prevent more extreme climatic events than what humans have already endured. 2.0 Literature Review Extreme climate changes (either natural ones or due to global warming) are always disruptive, but large global scale of climate changes fostered by concentrations of human-induced greenhouse gases are difficult for the Earth to adapt (Barnett et al., 2005; Hansen et al., 2005; O’Neill & Oppenheimer, 2002). Since the first Industrial Revolution (1760-1860), the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 40% combined with vast volumes of more potent greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide which are mainly contributed by livestock farming (Meehl et al., 2005; King, 2004; NCDC, 2004; Wang & Chameides, 2005). Except the fourth revolution (Industry 4.0), the antecedents were fueled by the emergence of fossil fuels; the first industrial revolution resulted in a shift from agriculture to mechanization thanks to mass extraction of coal and invention of the steam engine; a century later, the second revolution (1870-1965) used electricity, gas and oil to their full potential (i.e. mass production); the third revolution (1969-99) was prompted with the emergence of nuclear energy, plus the invention of both transistors and microprocessors gave rise to electronics and later to computers (automation); now we are in what is called “industry 4.0” which is about digitalization (i.e. blockchain and Bitcoin) rather than the emergence of a new energy type. The genesis of blockchain rooted in the emergence of the Internet3; by the late 1990s, two attempts at creating a decentralized digital currency emerged; “b-money” (proof-of-stake POS) by Wei Dai (Dai, 1998) and Bitgold by blockchain pioneer Nick Szabo4 (Goldschlag & Stubblebine, 1998; Vishnumurthy et al., 2003; Okamoto & Ohta, 1992; Kocherlakota, 1998; Sander & Ta-Shma, 1999). Unfortunately, applications such as combating email spam (Dwork & Naor, 1992; Laurie & Clayton, 2004), internet-based payment systems (Sirbu & Tygar, 1995) and minting digital coins (Rivest & Shamir, 1997) did not survive long to see the realm of blockchain and Bitcoin in January 2009. Satoshi Nakamoto (2008) had knowledge of the earlier research of Adam Back’s (2002) Hashcash5 and used the proof-of-work (PoW) in the design of Bitcoin (Camenisch et al., 2005; Okamoto & Ohta, 1992; Woodford, 2000).6 Bitcoin has been quite volatile since inception (Berentsen & Schär, 2018; Blundell-Wignall, 2014), this has kept reemerging the old question of whether Bitcoin is an asset, an investment vehicle, or cryptocurrency. The illicit e-commerce activities involving bitcoins prompted regulators, lawmakers, and central banks (the Fed and ECB in particular) across the world (Bain & Weinstein, 2019) to call for a greater scrutiny of Bitcoin on terrorism-financing, money-laundering, illegal drugs (Silk Road7) and human trafficking (Bonneau et al., 2015; Gudgeon et al., 2019; Christin, 2013). Despite difficulty to get a grasp on the Bitcoin phenomenon (Franco, 2014; Sovbetov, 2018; Grech & Camilleri, 2017), Bitcoin and blockchain have gained immense popularity after the 2008 global financial crisis8 and become household names (Wallace, 2011). Since Bitcoin’s debut in January 2009, 3,013 cryptocurrencies have sprouted; as of 21 October 2019, the aggregate market capitalization was $222 billion, 66.6% of which belonged to Bitcoin with market cap of $148 billion. However, at its all-time peak in December 2017, the market cap of Bitcoin was $321 billion and the combined market cap hit $830 billion.9 The global mean surface temperature (GMST) has warmed up approximately +0.8 °C (1.4 °F) due to past and ongoing emissions of greenhouse gasses (Figure 1, Henderson et al., 2018) resulting from human activities since the Industrial Revolution (1900s). If all humans do not take immediate actions in the next decade to reduce the pace of Earth’s warming (i.e. zero CO2 beyond 2050), scientists claim that global warming may accelerate to around 1.5 °C by 2050 (IPCC, 2018). Agriculture, deforestation and livestock farming are main actors of global greenhouse gas emissions.10 Deforestation as a way to convert forests into farmland to grow feed (crops) as well as to produce pulp and fiber which are used in paper production releases already trapped CO2 in trees, soil and other vegetation. Block9chain can help reduce global warming through creating a paperless world; this way, less carbon will be released from the biosphere as a result of reduced deforestation11 and the Earth’s carbon cycle will be more balanced. If Bitcoin, Ethereum or more recently Facebook’s Libra coin spur central banks worldwide to introduce their own cryptocurrencies (i.e. paper money and coins are removed from the circulation), blockchain can save roughly 973 million trees from being cut (Table 2). Blockchain can help reduce deforestation further if the financial system as a whole is decentralized without the need of a trusted-third party intermediation (Figure 2); under which, account holders will do everything that they normally do in the traditional financial system with a trusted third party in the blockchain platform (i.e. send/receive money, transact among each other, view account activity, invest, open/close accounts, pay bills, access accounts globally, and do many more services within few seconds). Although the U.S. banking system has increased its e-statement penetration for deposit account customers to around 40% (i.e. global average is 24%), still millions of paper statements are sent annually. Despite the popularity of e-statements among young customers, many global banks saw their paper consumption to rise (i.e. the world’s annual paper consumption is 400 million tons). Blockchain technology can be very effective in reducing global warming due to human activities and the resultant emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (i.e. methane and nitrous oxide). Arcade City and its ridesharing application on blockchain is a perfect example of attempting to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; instead of people driving to work alone, blockchain based on the profiles in the system connects available drivers and passengers in a ridesharing match (e.g. Solat & Potop-Butucaru, 2016; Zheng et al., 2017). Another area where blockchain can be efficiently deployed to reduce human activity is the largely fragmented real estate sector comprising a number of trusted third parties (i.e. middlemen). Blockchain with distributed ledger technology (DLT) brings all involved middlemen together on the same platform (i.e. escrow, real estate agents, brokers, title companies, inspectors, appraisers, buyers, sellers, public notaries, and related local, state or federal government offices); this way, blockchain avoids unnecessary human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. Also, blockchain can be used in healthcare to store various and extensive medical records of people that can be accessed by doctors and patients from anywhere throughout the world, which could save time and many lives in medical emergencies (Dorri et al., 2017; Ekblaw et al., 2016; Grinberg, 2012). There are over 28,000 universities14 in the world (i.e. with about 4,000 universities, the United States has the top position in the world ranking with 58 universities in the top 100) and more than 200 million students are enrolled in higher education15 (for more detailed data on education, see OECD, 2018). I know from my own experience, to access academic records, place an order for transcripts or employers needing to verify degrees are not only costly and very challenging, but in most cases impossible to get it done online; blockchain can reduce human activities here as well by providing easy and fast access to academic records of both existing and graduate students without a central authority (i.e. universities’ admissions and records office). Universities can upload all relevant data for each student (i.e. diplomas, transcripts, major, achievements, etc.), and then students, other universities, and employers can access school data with special links (i.e. security keys) provided to them. Because the future prospects of blockchain has such a huge spectrum, its potential and possibilities are therefore endless; see Figure 3 for the list of areas where blockchain can be utilized to contribute to the reduction of global warming. In order to achieve zero CO2 by 2050 or 2070, all citizens of the world must act now; extreme weather events we experience today are the consequences of the Earth’s warming up of +0.8 °C (1.4 °F) since the Industrial Revolution (i.e. 1900s) and unfortunately it is impossible for humans to avert these climatic changes even the emissions of greenhouse gases stopped altogether. With blockchain technology, we can act now to avoid extreme climate changes in 2030 and beyond. Global warming is real and it is with us, and if necessary measurements are not taken immediately, it can lead to catastrophic losses in every aspect of human life. The global financial crisis of 2008 and the financial dismay it left behind is still fresh in memories (i.e. financial losses of over $30 trillion worldwide), but failing to reduce global warming to an acceptable level in the next decade will result in climate changes maybe ten times or hundred times more severe than what has been experienced so far. Blockchain can reduce the current pace of global warming by reducing human activity and their induced greenhouse gas emissions; through effective deployment of various blockchain technologies, wasting of resources will be reduced or in some cases eliminated. The use of blockchain in agriculture, factory farming, and livestock farming not only will reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases released from these atmosphere-suffocating industries, blockchain will contribute positively to the efforts of limiting deforestation. The global mean surface temperature (GMST) has warmed up approximately +0.8 °C (1.4 °F) due to past and ongoing emissions of greenhouse gasses mainly resulting from human activities since the Industrial Revolution (1900s). If all humans do not take immediate actions in the next decade to reduce the pace of Earth’s warming (i.e. zero CO2 beyond 2050), scientists claim that global warming may accelerate to around 1.5 °C by 2050.

Many scholars have pointed to January 6th as the catalyst for renewed attention on insider threats and domestic violent extremism as national security priorities.6 Both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have since recognized the evolving threat landscape since 9/11 and national and nuclear security priorities have slowly shifted from its long-time focus on international jihadists and foreign radicalization, towards domestic terrorists. In the aftermath of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the issue of “insider threats” was at the forefront of U.S. counterterrorism efforts, but failed to evolve in the post-9/11 environment.7 In the weeks following the siege, a new picture of the threat landscape emerged as the Department of Justice and FBI launched a nationwide effort to investigate the participants of January 6th. The investigation revealed that most participants were adherents of extremist ideology, many of whom were radicalized online and mobilized to take part in the insurrection. Some also adhered to a DVE ideology of concern for nuclear security, accelerationism, which is described in more detail later in this paper.

What is concerning, however, is the original failure of the FBI to anticipate the Capitol attack in the first place. Before the end of the 2020 presidential race, a team of intelligence analysts tried to game out the worst potential outcomes of a disputed election. But they never thought of the one that transpired: a violent mob mobilizing to overturn the election in support of Donald Trump.8 Adam Goldman and Alan Feur write that the FBI was “[a]pparently blinded by a narrow focus on ‘lone wolf’ offenders and a misguided belief that the threat from the far left was as great as that from the far right,” thus, officials at the bureau did not anticipate or adequately prepare for the attack.9 This confirmation bias also failed to account for actors such as militia groups or white supremacists, who took a leading role in the Capitol siege.

The Cross-Border Payment System Is a Stumbling Block for Both Financial Inclusion and Combatting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing.

Policy makers across the world have devoted years of effort and study to two high priority goals: improving financial access and combating money launderers and terrorists. While inroads have been made in both areas, progress remains unacceptably slow, especially in the area of cross-border payments.

As the world becomes increasingly digitized, organizations known as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO) have grown in popularity.

Such organizations are run through smart contracts on a blockchain network, such as Ethereum. They are autonomous in that they are self-governing and exist outside of traditional legal frameworks. What do these traits mean? That DAOs have the potential to radically change the way we do business.

The blockchain industry has witnessed remarkable growth and innovation in recent years, revolutionizing various sectors with its decentralized and transparent nature. However, amid this rapid development, the importance of patents and intellectual property (IP) in the blockchain ecosystem cannot be overstated.

Patents play a vital role in every major industry protecting and incentivizing innovation. They provide legal protection for novel ideas, algorithms, processes, and inventions. With patents, innovators can safeguard their intellectual capital, encouraging them to invest time and resources into research and development, knowing that their efforts will be protected. Some of the top industry leaders holding blockchain-related patents include IBM, Baidu, Alipay, Toyota, Bank of America, and Microsoft.

India is an indispensable partner for the United States. Geographically, it sits between the two most immediate problematic regions for U.S. national interests. The arc of instability that begins in North Africa, goes through the Middle East, and proceeds to Pakistan and Afghanistan ends at India’s western border. To its east, India shares a contested land border with the other rising Asian power of the twenty-first century, China. India—despite continuing challenges with internal violence— is a force for stability, prosperity, democracy, and the rule of law in a very dangerous neighborhood. The Indian landmass juts into the ocean that bears its name. With the rise of Asian economies, the Indian Ocean is home to critical global lines of communication, with perhaps 50 percent of world container products and up to 70 percent of ship-borne oil and petroleum traffic transiting through its waters. For the United States, India’s location alone makes it a more consequential partner than other nations more distant from these U.S. zones of concern. Unlike many U.S. treaty allies, India does not need to be convinced that a distant problem requires the projection of U.S. power to be successfully managed. Many of America’s global challenges are India’s regional challenges, and therefore India is uniquely positioned to exert influence and offer resources to help deal with them. India’s growing national capabilities give it ever greater tools to pursue its national interests to the benefit of the United States. India has the world’s third-largest army, fourth-largest air force, and fifthlargest navy. All three of these services are modernizing, and the Indian air force and Indian navy have world-class technical resources, and its army is seeking more of them. Moreover, unlike some longtime U.S. partners, India has demonstrated that it possesses not only a professional military force, but also a willingness to suffer substantial military hardship and loss in order to defend Indian national interests. India is an important U.S. partner in international efforts to prevent the further spread of weapons of mass destruction. Despite India’s principled refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), India has shown itself to be a responsible steward of nuclear technology. Similarly, despite decades of work on missile and space launch vehicle technology, India has not been a proliferator of these technologies. India’s assistance on nonproliferation will also be critical regarding chemical and biological weapons, given its substantial chemical and biotechnology industries, which could unwittingly be the source of precursor materials to dangerous actors. In all of these areas where India has considerable technological expertise, India has exhibited restraint and responsibility in its international behavior. During President Barack Obama’s visit to India in 2010, the United States announced its intent to support India’s phased induction into the four multilateral export control regimes (the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group, and Wassenaar Arrangement), continuing efforts begun in the Bush administration to bring India fully into the nonproliferation mainstream. In addition to its role as a potential technology provider, India will play an important and growing political role on international nonproliferation issues. India’s broad diplomatic ties globally (most importantly in the Middle East), its aspirations for United Nations (UN) Security Council permanent membership, and its role in international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency make New Delhi an especially effective voice in calls to halt proliferation. India’s position against radicalism and terrorism corresponds with that of the United States. India has suffered terribly from terrorism over the last three decades and like the United States is determined to prevent, deter, and disrupt the terrorist groups that most threaten it. There was no hesitation to India’s offer of assistance to the United States following the attacks of September 11, 2001, because India viewed its national interests as congruent with those of the United States’ in uprooting transnational terrorist groups. Similarly, the United States quickly offered law enforcement and intelligence cooperation after the terrorist attacks on Mumbai that began on November 26, 2008. Economically, India has grown at an average of 7.6 percent in real terms over the last decade, according to International Monetary Fund statistics, with only a modest decline due to the global economic crisis in 2008 and 2009. After charting 10.4 percent growth in 2010, the government of India believes that it can sustain rates of 8 to 9 percent economic expansion for the foreseeable future. Goldman Sachs agrees, estimating that the Indian economy will expand at an average rate of 8.4 percent through 2020. In short, over the next two decades India is on a path to become a global economic powerhouse, with all that implies for the U.S. and world economies. With respect to economic enterprise and science and technology cooperation, the United States is India’s collaborator of choice. India’s English-speaking and Western-oriented elite and middle classes comfortably partner with their counterparts in U.S. firms and institutions, including more than 2.8 million Indian Americans. The U.S. higher educational system is an incubator of future collaboration, with more than 100,000 Indian students in American universities, more than from any other country except China. Trade between the United States and India has doubled twice in the last ten years. Bilateral trade has been balanced in terms of its content and is beneficial to both countries. In many sectors, the role of governments is simply to encourage what the private sector already desires by removing remaining barriers that prevent cooperative outcomes. As India modernizes and grows it will spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure, transportation, energy production and distribution, and defense hardware. U.S. firms can benefit immensely by providing expertise and technology that India will need to carry out this sweeping transformation. India-U.S. cooperation is critical to global action against climate change. According to the International Energy Agency, India is already the fourth-largest aggregate producer of carbon dioxide from energy use, behind China, the United States, and Russia. India’s high ranking as a greenhouse gas producer has mostly to do with its sheer size; India produces dramatically fewer greenhouse gases than industrialized or other developing nations on a per capita basis and is below the global average in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of gross domestic product. Even so, because of India’s aggressive economic growth profile combined with higher than average population growth, its share of global greenhouse gas production will rise substantially between now and 2050. India has shown itself to be keenly interested in cooperation on renewable energy technology and efficiency standards that would allow it to retain its growth and still reduce its emissions intensity over time. India’s role, both as a fast-growing large economy and as a leader of the developing world, makes Indian agreement a necessary condition for the success of any prospective international climate change accord. On issues of global governance, India will remain the most important swing state in the international system. Importantly, India is genuinely committed to a world order based on multilateral institutions and cooperation and the evolution of accepted international norms leading to accepted international law. Despite being a rising power with some complaints regarding the existing global governance structure, India seeks to reform the present system and not to overturn it. U.S. and Indian national interests naturally overlap on many of these issues, given India’s commitment to a stable Asia, democracy, market-driven growth, the rule of law, and opposition to violent extremism. India’s capability extends well beyond the realm of military, economic, and global diplomatic power. Indian culture and diplomacy has generated goodwill in its extended neighborhood. New Delhi has positive relations with critical states in the Middle East, in Central Asia, in Southeast Asia, and with important middle powers such as Brazil, South Africa, and Japan—all of strategic value to the United States. India’s soft power is manifest in wide swaths of the world where its civil society has made a growing and positive impression. This includes the global spread of its private corporate sector, the market for its popular culture, its historical religious footprint, and the example of its democracy and nongovernmental institutions. In addition, India has demonstrated an enduring commitment to democratic values. Indian democracy has prospered despite endemic poverty; extraordinary ethnic, religious, and linguistic diversity; and foreign and internal conflicts. It has provided Indian society the resilience and adaptability necessary to overcome and respond to the myriad challenges the nation has faced since independence. India and the United States share the objective to strengthen pluralist and secular democracies worldwide, and India’s rise as a democratic great power promotes that profound global objective. For many of the reasons indicated, a stronger India inevitably makes managing a stable balance of power in Asia significantly easier for the United States. Although other friendly countries in the region writ large will also play a critical role, over the next two decades India may well become the most important Asian partner for the United States in ensuring that the broad balance of power that serves Asia so well is preserved.

Intellectual property is critical to the sustained growth of the economy.

In the United States, according to a Commerce Department study, nearly 40 million American jobs are supported by intellectual property-intensive industries. They account for over $5 trillion, or 34.8 percent of gross domestic product. Throughout his two terms, President Barack Obama has taken significant steps to improve intellectual property (IP) by issuing executive orders and recommendations. In 2011, the president signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which was designed to help make the U.S. patent system more efficient and reliable. Additionally, Obama established two intellectual property enforcement advisory committees designed to improve IP enforcement efforts. In 2013, he issued five executive actions and seven legislative recommendations designed to protect innovators from frivolous litigation and ensure the highest-quality patents. In his 2014 State of the Union address, Obama called for Congress to pass a patent reform bill that would allow U.S. businesses to focus on innovation, not needless litigation.

An indispensable requirement to charting India’s path to power is getting the country back on a high growth trajectory. It is the substance of economic muscle rather than mere posture of strength which will expand room for manouevre in an era of geopolitical contestation. This requires not only sustaining but also expanding the outward orientation of the economy and its becoming part of both regional and global supply chains. Atmanirbhar Bharat must not mean a relapse into a high-cost and low-quality economy which prevailed before the 1990s. India’s future as a great power requires its integration with the regional and global economy and India must position itself as the engine of growth for the entire subcontinent. The Neighbourhood First policy needs to be underpinned by regional economic integration and SAARC should be utilised as an important platform for achieving this, even if Pakistan does not cooperate. Sidelining SAARC carries the risk of other member countries inviting China to be a full member which will only serve to complicate the security challenge for India. China has already set up a grouping consisting of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka for cooperation with China on regional connectivity and development. India could become a preferred partner to its South Asian neighbours in their pursuit of social and economic development, drawing upon the advantage of proximity, the size of the Indian market and the deep cultural affinities that bind the people of the subcontinent together.

India is at a stage of its development cycle when it needs large infusions of capital and technology. India can leverage its benign partnerships with the key knowledge and financial centres of the world, in particular, the US, Europe and Japan, to build a stronger and modern economy. The evolving geopolitical situation places India in a sweet spot because of concerns about a rising challenge from China. Recent domestic developments in China, with growing hostility towards its hitherto vibrant private sector, is raising uncertainties and fears about the safety and viability of western investment in China. India’s economy alone offers a scale comparable to China. This would help transform India into one of the most dynamic and modern economies by the end of the current decade. The critical policy decisions to achieve this must be taken now.

The legal landscape surrounding the utilization of DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) in India remains uncertain, as there exists no dedicated legislation or regulatory framework governing their operations within the country. Nonetheless, several general legal principles and existing regulations may have implications for DAOs.

Primarily, the tokens issued by DAO's could potentially come under the oversight of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). Though, as on date there is legislation to classify putting the tokens within the ambit of SEBI however, it cannot be ruled out that the SEBI has power to carry out an investigation and take call on the same.

In the interaction between technology and the concept of human decentralised autonomy, the term ‘blockchain’ has become synonymous to defy the traditional methods of centralised governance. This centralised system takes the form of many scenarios; whether it being constituted as money being controlled by the government or business being restricted to a handful of members in a boardroom.

This defiance to traditional measures of operation gives birth to new ideas like Decentralised Autonomous Organisations or popularly known as DAO’s. DAO’s can be simply defined as a collective association of people who come together for a shared purpose or goal (which may/may not change in the future) on the blockchain network and decide on important aspects of the goal like managing governance of goods on the network, how specific contracts would be executed based on rules imbibed in codes, regulation of other parts like information management in the network and how decentralised financing would work in the blockchain network etc[i]. Simply said, it is a tight knit community of people who have voting rights when it comes to amendments of rules of the organization which are themselves in the form of code on the blockchain network.

OXFORD – The last few decades of globalization and innovation have resulted in the most rapid progress that the world has ever known. Poverty has been reduced. Life expectancy has increased. Wealth has been created at a scale that our ancestors could not have imagined. But the news is not all good. In fact, the achievements brought about by globalization are now under threat. The world has simultaneously benefited from globalization and failed to manage the inherent complications resulting from the increased integration of our societies, our economies, and the infrastructure of modern life. As a result, we have become dangerously exposed to systemic risks that transcend borders. These threats spill across national boundaries and cross the traditional divides between industries and organizations. An integrated financial system propagates economic crises. International air travel spreads pandemics. Interconnected computers provide rich hunting grounds for cybercriminals. Middle Eastern jihadis use the Internet to recruit young Europeans. Living standards rise – and greenhouse-gas emissions follow, accelerating climate change. As a byproduct of globalization, crises that once burned locally and then quickly flamed out now risk sparking international conflagrations. A pandemic, flood, or cyber attack in the City of London or Wall Street could send the entire world into a financial tailspin. If the progress that globalization has delivered is to be sustained, countries must accept shared responsibility for managing the risks that it has engendered. National governments – whether powerful, like the United States and China, or weak, like Iraq and Liberia – are unable to address these cascading and complex challenges on their own. Only a small fraction of the risks arising from globalization require a truly global response. But, by definition, these risks transcend the nation-state; thus, coordinated action is required to address them effectively. The nature of the response needs to be tailored to the threat. In the case of pandemics, the key is to support countries where outbreaks occur and help those most at risk of infection. Widespread dangers, such as climate change or a new financial crisis, can require the cooperation of dozens of countries and a broad range of institutions. In nearly every case, an international effort is needed. An important characteristic of the risks of a globalized world is that they often become more serious over time. As a result, the speed at which they are identified, along with the effectiveness of the response, can determine whether an isolated event becomes a global threat. One need only look at the rise of the Islamic State, the outbreak of Ebola, the fight against climate change, or the financial contagion of 2008 to see what happens when a danger remains unidentified for too long or a coordinated response is missing or mismanaged. And yet, just as the need for robust regional and international institutions is at its greatest, support for them is waning. A growing number of citizens in Europe, North America, and the Middle East blame globalization for unemployment, rising inequality, pandemics, and terrorism. Because of these risks, they regard increased integration, openness, and innovation as more of a threat than an opportunity. This creates a vicious circle. The concerns of the electorate are reflected in rapidly growing support for political parties that advocate increased protectionism, reductions in immigration, and greater national control over the marketplace. As a result, governments across Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania are becoming more parochial in their concerns, starving international agencies and regional organizations of the funding, credibility, and leadership capabilities needed to mount a proper response to the challenges of globalization. In the short term, countries may be able to duck their global responsibilities, but the threat posed by events beyond their borders cannot be kept at bay forever. Unaddressed, the endemic dangers of a globalized world will continue to grow. In confronting dangers such as the Islamic State, Ebola, financial crisis, climate change, or rising inequality, short-term political expediency must be overcome – or the entire world will come to regret it.

As Decentralized Autonomous Organizations become an increasingly popular means to bring global networks together, the legal uncertainties create opportunities for improvement and advancement. 

Blockchain technology has been an ever-growing development in creating shared data networks that verify and save various transactions. The newest development, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAO), takes blockchain tech a step further by establishing an expansive, transparent, and objective rules-based structure. A DAO allows members to vote on how the organization will function: its rules, its finances, its objectives. Based on the DAO’s code, it will perform certain actions when a threshold vote (for example 50%) is met. Instead of a small group running the operations and making the decisions for the whole, the entire DAO membership has a voice in the day-to-day functions of the organization. Essentially a DAO executes its actions via code rather than behind closed doors.[1]

Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are a popular way to organize technical projects. They perform significant work in multiple areas, especially developing crypto financial software systems. As such, they may one day become embroiled in patent litigation, even though such litigation has been rare in the blockchain space.

DAOs have many unique properties related to how they engage in litigation. In this article, we discuss DAOs as potential patent litigants. DAOs are rising in prominence and are used to manage capital in an ever-increasing number of technology areas. As this continues, the odds that DAOs are involved in patent litigation, as plaintiff or defendant, continue to grow.