Blockchain Papers

Karsten Schulz, Oskar Josef Gstrein, Andrej Zwitter

Societies at large still grapple to categorize digital space as a phenomenon. At the same time, scientists and developers are searching for innovative methods to better understand how the fundamental shifts caused by digital change will affect the future of humanity over the coming decades. Interdisciplinary governance research at the intersection of technological and environmental foresight is urgently needed to minimize the risks of technological change and explore how digitalization may support, hinder or re-shape sustainability transformations. In this article, we focus on the case of ‘blockchain’ or distributed-ledger technology (DLT) to investigate how recent digital technologies may support the implementation of sustainable development initiatives. Our investigation is centered on areas of public administration and governance which will most likely see an adoption of DLT over the next two decades, such as digital identity, social service provision, and innovative climate finance. To allow for a meaningful comparison of various use cases, we propose four guiding questions that can help researchers, decision-makers and practitioners to determine whether DLT might be an appropriate choice for the sustainability-related task at hand. Moreover, we illustrate how the initial design and subsequent implementation of DLTs may support more centralized or networked modes of governance.

Darío Alatorre, Carlos Gershenson, José L. Mateos

In contrast with robust systems that resist noise or fragile systems that break with noise, antifragility is defined as a property of complex systems that benefit from noise or disorder. Here we define and test a simple measure of antifragility for complex dynamical systems. In this work we use our antifragility measure to analyze real data from return prices in the stock and cryptocurrency markets. Our definition of antifragility is the product of the return price and a perturbation. We explore different types of perturbations that typically arise from within the system. Our results suggest that for both the stock market and the cryptocurrency market, the tendency among the 'top performers' is to be robust rather than antifragile. It would be important to explore other possible definitions of antifragility to understand its role in financial markets and in complex dynamical systems in general.

Marie Davidová, Dermott McMeel

The paper is exploring methodology within the work in progress research by design through teaching project called 'Synergetic Landscapes'. It discusses codesign and cocreation processes that are crossing the academia, NGOs and applied practice within so called 'real life codesign laboratory' (Davidová, Pánek, & Pánková, 2018). This laboratory performs in real time and real life environment. The work investigates synergised bio-digital (living, non-living, physical, analogue, digital and virtual) prototypical interventions in urban environment that are linked to circular economy and life cycles systems running on blockchain. It represents a holistic systemic interactive and performing approach to design processes that involve living, habitational and edible, social and reproductive, circular and token economic systems. Those together are to cogenerate synergetic landscapes.

Jyoti Satpathy, Banita Mallik, Suruchi Gorg

Neuroscience and managerial-sciences have witnessed tremendous advance since turn of this Century. Making neuronal-directed neurostrategy-based judgements is a complex management action. Hominids share designed structural sphere and project stimulus on neurostrategy-based judgement processes. Neuroscience, along with cognito-management, has made unprecedented insights into human brain and nature. Fissures amongst judiciousness-based scrutiny adopt proxies and anthropological comportment in shepherding behavioural exploration on neurostrategy-based judgement making. Business actors, models and axioms of management tend to focus on either competences of business ‘actors’ or resources of organisation. Actor’s neurostrategy-based judgement dynamics has extended from behaviourist approach to cognitive that focuses on processes prior to response. ‘Deciding to Decide’, ‘Preferring to Prefer’, ‘Deciding to Prefer’ and ‘Preferring to Decide’ are four ‘bordered boundaries’ where business actor has to arrive at an optimal neurostrategy-based judgement. Managers (‘Actors’) contract high uncertainty, ambiguity, time pressure and emotional stress. Neural mechanisms of neurostrategy-based judgement making require integration of evidence over time until a response threshold is reached. Cognito-management investigates neurostrategy-based judgement making by using ‘cognito-tactical monikers’ (CTM) to investigate how brain behaves in circuit of higher cognitive functions. This has transitioned from mapping confined effects to evolving extrapolative models that assimilate data scattered across brain structures. In a progressively complex management milieu, managers struggle between tactical arrangements and precise methods to gauge degree of accomplishment of predetermined goals. Neurostrategy-based judgement-oriented planning assists as ‘catalyst’ in terms of cognitive behaviours. There is need to understand neurobiological ‘drivers’ for investigating underlying neurocomputational formulation mechanisms of neurostrategy-based judgement processes that underlie neurostrategy-based judgement making. These are skills to meet new age challenges. In this, scope is to understand how managerial traits mapping divulge behavioural insight. The factual lateral lies on analysis of available verifiable, reliable and significant information, filtering and sieving of available information and accessing expressive information. This is supplemented by actions of neuron cells to further process interactive-oriented actions. Managers’ generally count on heuristics in an air of improbability. In real world, encountered with multifaceted choice circumstances, managerial judgements surface from complex, complicated, cognitively demanding and intertwined set of data and information. Perceptive procedures are principal ‘drivers’ to calculate diverse optimal alternatives to grasp a judgement. Skin owns power-driven chattels (‘skin conductance’) that transform on relatively short time gauge of minutes allied to psycho-neurostrategy-based judgemental techniques. As a representation for neural action, transdisciplinary ‘skin-conductance driver’ aid merger of all neurostrategy-based judgement-related aspects. This ‘driver’ noise for ‘agent-oriented’ sculpting and psycho-managerial investigation efforts. Imaging tools have motivated neuromanagerial ‘skin-conductance driver’ of internal order of neurostrategy-based judgement making. ‘Skin-conductance driver’ exhibits potential for fundamental changes in how ‘Smart Managers’ contemplate, perceive and archetype judgement. Through ‘skin-conductance driver’, skin absorbs data, recognises and edges problematical ‘business climate’ towards suitable responses. ‘Smart Managers’ decide on judgements that represent ‘conflicting principles’. Question is how ‘Smart Managers’ makes judgements in a climate of vicissitudes in skin conductance. How judgements are carried out in skin of ‘Smart Managers’? Curiosity is on possibilities, philosophies, behaviours and stratagems that ‘Smart Managers’ uses to make judgements. How do portions of ‘Smart Managers’ skin administer judgement crafting, synchronise and engross in tactical explanation while deciding? There are unsolved problems in ‘skin geometry’ where neuromanagement seeks to explain ‘behaviour shapes’ (coherent ‘skin geometry’) towards neurostrategy-based judgement crafting? This experimental paper aims at exploring prospects and challenges in significant role of ‘neuronics’ in prototyping managerial neurostrategy-based judgements. Points of focus are on driving ‘information-agents’ and ‘information-elements’. What neuronal-strategic choices underpin neurostrategy-based judgements? Does systemic analysis reveal neuronal factors that contribute to explain effective mapping of neurostrategy-based judgements? In a quasi-experiment, a set of Managers were chosen and subject to information based neurostrategy-based judgement mapping. Results indicate that ‘information-agents’ and ‘information-elements’ do have a positive influence on neurostrategy-based judgement edifice of neurostrategy-based judgement prototyping. This paper attempts to analyse approaches to behavioural thinking in neuroscientific philosophy of biology experiments. CTM techniques explain neural basis of neurostrategy-based judgement making and endeavours to reconnoiter ‘skin-geometry’ phenomenon to screen theoretic contexts and empirical methods for appreciating heterogeneity of neurostrategy-based judgement circuit. Objective is to screen theoretic and empirical contexts in neuro-dermatological ‘skin geometry’ framework of ‘neurostrategy-based judgement circuit’. Methodology includes data collection was via single-phase process. For clinical tests, one (01) volunteer respondent (single-subject; N = 01) was chosen. Purpose is to assess that ‘skin geometry’ have stimulus on managers’ choice. Focus is on comparing neuro-dermatological observations to replicate philosophy of biology in research. Results demonstrate indications for spontaneous counterfactual replication in province of high-level reasoning. Major finding is that manager attempts to address a neuro-dermatological circuit using ‘skin geometry’ medium. Paper discusses findings and future directions to guide biology in neurostrategy-based judgement neuroscience via neuronal apparatus. Research offers ‘Golden Anchorage’ of neuro-locking of skin and neurostrategy-based judgement making dynamics to appreciate how ‘Smart Managers’ make judgements to neurostrategy-based judgemental questions.

Joshua Skewes, Dorthe Døjbak Håkonsson, Trine Bilde, Andreas Roepstorff

Collaborative decision making is central to the organization of society. Juries deliberate cases, voters elect government officials, open innovation networks converge on innovative solutions. It is common to think of such groups as decision making entities. But this language is imprecise. Real decision processes do not occur within any group or organization as an abstract entity. Collaborative decision making happens within and between autonomous individuals. This emphasizes the importance of the relationships between individual and social decision-making processes to social organization. Despite a rich body of literature on collaborative decision making we know little about how individuals decide to commit to group decision making in the first place, and how, once joined, they communicate their distributed information for optimal group performance. We introduce a general framework designed to model collaborative decision processes. Our main results are that 1) commitment and gain is enhanced when groups are designed so agents have realistic knowledge about the forgone gains and losses associated with abstaining from the group; and 2) that this effect is accelerated when communication between group members conveys more information about individual preferences. We thus demonstrate that collaborative decision making is done best when it is done by groups that are informationally open.

Fred Powledge

Climate change—fears of it; predictions about it; proposed reactions to it; and in some cases, denials of it—is a momentous issue for humanity, and it promises to become even more important. However, despite its importance—and mountains of scientific research on the topic—real progress by those with the means to address climate change has been slow in coming. The warming climate, with its accompanying intense weather, rising seas, and wrenching changes in agriculture, human health, and ecosystems in general, is not a recent discovery. Scientists and policymakers have been talking about it for decades. Climate scientists have produced reams of information about the change that is upon us—some showing that the shift is well under way, some offering ideas about how to cope with it by mitigating its effects or by adapting to it. Scientists are starting to develop the tools necessary to discover links between global change and specific local events, such as floods and droughts. Much of the US-based research is directed at people who make political decisions: members of Congress, the president, state legislators, municipal officials. But whereas the flow of information from scientists has been copious, the response from policymakers, including those at the topmost positions in government, has been minuscule. Interest in preparing for climate change seems to have been superseded by concerns about the economy. But the problems of a changed climate march on (see National Research Council definitions box), and at some point, policymakers will have to deal with them. As far back as 1978, Congress passed the National Climate Program Act in response to a need “to assist in the understanding and response to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications.” The legislation stated that “Congress finds and declares” that “an ability to anticipate natural and man-induced changes in climate would contribute to the soundness of policy decisions in the public and private sectors,” and that “the United States lacks a well-defined and coordinated program in climate-related research, monitoring, assessment of effects, and information utilization.” Today, after dozens of data-heavy reports on climate change, bolstered by the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the crisis remains unaddressed, in large part because the issue has become a partisan arguing point—increasingly so as a presidential election looms. In April 2011, the House of Representatives considered action stating that “Congress accepts the scientific findings… that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.” The national legislators voted the proposition down 240 to 184, largely along party lines. Scientists who study climate change, then, are left with the following question: How do we communicate in a meaningful way with policymakers? Climate change, in the United States and elsewhere, covers most areas of the human experience. A report from the US National Research Council lists the following areas of concern: changes in the climate system; sea-level rise and its effects on the coastal environment; freshwater resources; ecosystems, ecosystem services, and biodiversity; agriculture and aquaculture; public health; cities and the “built environment”; transportation systems; energy systems; solar radiation management; national and human security; and climate policy. First of all, says Pamela A. Matson, an interdisciplinary earth scientist at Stanford University, scientists should not tell policymakers what to do. Matson chaired one of four expert panels charged by the US National Academies in 2009 with studying climate change and recommending responses to it. The panels—Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change, Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change, and Advancing the Science of Climate Change—each produced extensive reports. Together, these reports and a summary volume form a solid tutorial on the challenges facing the nation (see For more information). Matson headed the Advancing the Science of Climate Change panel. “We can't do much about politics,” said Matson in an interview, “other than to keep reminding people that there is a huge amount of evidence about climate change, its causes, and the risks associated with it. Decisionmakers of all sorts will need to decide if they want to take the risks and expose future generations to even greater risks, but scientists can do our best to provide the best and most clear information about those risks and uncertainties. We can also help by providing viable options for reducing those risks—options that make sense from social, economic, technical, and environmental perspectives. The Advancing report calls for more research designed to develop such options and thus support decisionmakers who want to respond to the risks of climate change by limiting it and adapting to it.” In practically all of the heavyweight studies of climate change, including those in the National Academies quartet, the panelists assumed that the federal government is the logical leader in climate policymaking, if only because climate does not respect local boundaries (or international ones either). But there are scant signs of leadership from federal officials, and there is active opposition to any climate action (or even the notion that climate change exists) among some national legislators. Progress at the federal level, says Peter Raven, cochair of the National Academies panel Informing Decisions and Actions, is missing. His panel recommended that the federal government create “comprehensive, robust, and credible information systems to inform climate choices and evaluate their effectiveness.” “My impression,” said Raven recently, “is that it hasn't happened. The United States is the only nation in the world where serious doubt is expressed about the scientific conclusion that the climate is warming rapidly and that human beings are the principal underlying factor. That kind of anti-intellectualism can only hurt as we try to maintain our standing in science and technology against some very stiff competition internationally.” Robert Fri, visiting scholar at Resources for the Future, chaired the Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change panel, which recommended “a framework of national goals and policies” to limit greenhouse gases. Asked about the report's reception, he replied, “Policy attention has been focused on the economy recently. Not much has happened on the climate front as a result.” So the search for leadership has turned elsewhere—to local, state, and regional governments and private organizations. Several states have undertaken serious studies of climate change problems, many of them as a result of gubernatorial executive orders issued a few years ago, when climate change was considered less controversial. Some went a step further and set up commissions to recommend legislative action. The results of those efforts have been mixed; the economic crisis has sapped much of the climate change energy of local, as well as national, politicians. Arizona's Policy on Climate Change, instituted on 2 February 2010, under Governor Jan Brewer, seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions “while maintaining Arizona's economic growth and competitiveness.” Yet in the same executive order that established the policy, Brewer pulled her state out of a promising regional effort, the Western Climate Initiative, to limit the gases. The 15-member commission created by Brewer's executive order included representatives of electric power, manufacturing, and mining companies, but no scientists. Arctic sea ice reaches its annual minimum in September. The satellite images above show September Arctic sea ice in 1979 (upper panel), the first year these data were available, and in 2007 (lower panel). Source: US Global Change Research Program (www.globalchange.gov). For a free download of the National Academies 2009 expert panel reports and a summary volume, among other reports on climate, go to www.nap.edu. A 1990 law created the National Climate Assessment, which evaluates federal global research programs. The most recent assessment was in 2009; to see an outline of the forthcoming 2013 report, visit http://globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment. Information on climate research may be found through the US Global Change Research Program Web site, at http://globalchange.gov/. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change publishes the “Climate Change 101” series, available at www.pewclimate.org/globalwarming-basics/climate_change_101. For detailed state reports on plans and recommendations for adaptation, see Massachusetts's at www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/energy/cca/eea-climate-adaptation-report.pdf. For a critical look at America's willingness to adapt to climate change, see Robert Repetto's 2008 report for the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at http://environment.yale.edu/publication-series/climate_change/5790. The Colorado Climate Project created a blue-ribbon action panel in 2007 that, a year later, produced 70 recommendations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for the coming changes. The panel's efforts appear to have been received favorably by policymakers. Texas, beset by wildfires in 2011 that some experts linked to climate change, has no state adaptation plan, according to a survey by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Texas leads the states in carbon dioxide emissions. In Connecticut, the Governor's Steering Committee on Climate Change says that it is “working with stakeholders” and “assessing the impacts of climate change.” However, the committee's Web site devotes approximately half of its space to thanking the company that designed its logo. Massachusetts has made a more strenuous effort. In September 2011, the state sent a report to its legislature in which the expected impacts were analyzed and suggestions were made for reactions to them. The proof of the pudding in Massachusetts, as in the nation as a whole, lies in what happens after the recommendations go to the policymakers. In the Bay State, that would include the office of Frank I. Smizik, the chair of the House Committee on Climate Change. Smizik believes that climate change is going to affect “every corner of our lives,” is already creating problems, and is “one of the most complex and interrelated problems we face. And that makes it even more of a challenge to confront.” In an interview, the legislator praised the state's framework report both for its “long-term and far-reaching strategies” and for the “small, incremental improvements we can make at little or no cost. This aspect of the report makes the necessary task of climate adaptation seem more feasible.” Does this mean that Massachusetts's policymakers will rush to enact laws to deal with the well-documented menace? “Ideally, the need to adapt to climate change will be taken seriously, and these strategies will be swiftly transformed into reality in Massachusetts,” said Smizik. “Realistically, it won't be that easy. My job as the Chair of the House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change is to advocate for the strategies that I think are not only most effective but also the most politically feasible at this time. I could see some of the more short-term, cost-effective strategies making progress in the State House as legislative packages. Meanwhile, some strategies will be directly implemented by state agencies. “I feel these issues are very pressing and they warrant our immediate attention. But… the legislating and governing process takes time, with good reason. The release of this adaptation report is an important step for our state, but it's hard to say how quickly or slowly these adaptation measures will become law. The economic climate is such that legislators are very focused on job creation and the like, and environmental issues are often pushed to the back burner in this situation.” The state of Washington is another place where policymakers take climate change seriously. Hedia Adelsman is the director of the state's Department of Ecology. Her predecessor in that job was Christine Gregoire, who went on to become the state's attorney general and then governor. Adelsman credits Gregoire with helping move climate awareness into action. Also, the University of Washington produced an exhaustive examination of climate change and ways to react to it that has served as a vital resource for legislators and other policymakers. Within 50–100 years, 2400 miles of major roadway are projected to be inundated by sea-level rise in the Gulf Coast region. The map shows roadways at risk in the event of a sea-level rise of about 4 feet, which is within the range of projections for this region in this century under medium- and high-emissions scenarios. In total, 24 percent of interstate highway miles and 28 percent of secondary road miles in the Gulf Coast region are at elevations below 4 feet. Source: US Global Change Research Program (www.globalchange.gov). Even though Washington is more environmentally conscious than most other states, economic troubles have hampered action on the climate front. “The conversation is not as active as it used to be,” said Adelsman in an interview, “[for] a couple of reasons: One of them—no surprise—is all the budget problems that the state is facing. And when you talk about the impact of climate change, people really see it as in the future. And right now we have all these urgent problems facing us. Some of the impacts that would be due to climate change… people don't see as something that's happening now. They see it as happening a little bit more in the future. So they feel like they can get back to it later… But the communication continues. “It all depends on how you describe it,” she said. “If you are describing the problem as a water-availability issue—if we are going to face a major issue with water available for irrigation; for municipal, for our fish, the salmon—you get people to listen. If you talk about it as global warming, it's immediately, ‘go away.’ “It's kind of sad to not call it by what it is, but it's much easier to communicate with the public and with the policymaker if you put it in these terms.” Some, including the authors of the National Research Council's panel Advancing the Science of Climate Change, think that a likely source of federal leadership can come, with a few modifications, from an existing organization: the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which was created in 1989 as a presidential initiative by George H. W. Bush. USGCRP coordinates and integrates the global change work of 13 agencies, from the US Department of Agriculture to the US Department of Defense to the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Smithsonian Institution. Thomas Armstrong, of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is USGCRP's executive director. In an interview, he said that he certainly agreed with the panels' findings. “But the real challenge comes not when you recommend strategic changes but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of implementing programs.” One potential obstacle, he said, could come if 13 agencies, which together receive $2.8 billion in global change research funds, are asked not only to funnel their work through a single office—his—but are made to redirect their agencies' funding as well. “If we were to take this level of enterprise and now say that it is no longer just coordinated but actually run out of my office, with all the resources coming to my office, that would be a big change in our collective way of doing to say the said is the 13 agencies, and the 13 are The of 13 them and a of leadership of this I would be that in their we would be the and of 13 federal who their research and to 13 agencies' In we would be the USGCRP out of what makes this program so the Science in climate information to policymakers. one is the climate change who can of all science in the of some is the of of scientific which scientists by their as does the in of such as very out of out of very than out of and so deal with communication such as these and many there has a of or for a can be government agencies, such as the that produced the state action or state such as Hedia in and federal such as the USGCRP they can be such as the regional Climate Science that were established in 2009 by the US Department of the The are by the US and by one or more significant of communication is by private and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, which has been to and information on climate Climate an of and a for natural systems in the face of climate change.” The which a large of for for adaptation, dozens of studies from The appear to be some in scientific information into the of those who already want to it in their program director at the Climate for the part of a regional program run by the National and says that it that are more with decisionmakers much to the in of decisions that may be to scientific for something more to We certainly people who are out scientific information to make decisions that help them deal with of these decisions to the that has the region for years and are vital to policymakers who deal with water does a of its when public and private including a to a are also for scientific about adaptation and a then, is on the that climate change is important. are who for one or climate or climate change as something they really need to more about into their it's because a to attention to of the US Department of the have been under orders now to make climate change part of their it's because an like their is to the impacts of climate, and they want to more so they can to address this it's because an or government has a climate impact that them into The is an of as is in the United States and for how are projected to become more A so that it is years would other year or more by the of the century under the Source: US Global Change Research Program (www.globalchange.gov). But on many other the science of climate change has a much was one of states that active in the issue of climate change State and a the on Global Climate Change and it with the problems of global warming, as well as with into ways to the and with the potential of carbon The commission for years and up with the of that time, the legislature to the commission to its State who was cochair of the now says that the effort. in the way of the scientific evidence and any for doing about a she said in an “We a from the with the of so They all up and to recommend of We a very large and it was so it was to Even with she said, that make it out of her at the As the climate that are to Source: US Global Change Research Program (www.globalchange.gov). says that opposition to progress from and such as the and who of the US are major of and “It was she said. “I could get an passed that that our state the impact of climate change and make recommendations as to policy changes and other even any to deal with I that we would be that climate change is an issue in will see little to no to address climate change the leadership is in This is we are the most in the to sea-level she said. In the state is for and has also and said, “We are one of the of greenhouse at in the than many that the state has to a of and has its carbon The for those measures was For climate change legislation to on its she said, “I we will need federal