• Solodkiy talked about “The Bubble Generation” and its impact on employment within two to five years
• “Bubble” companies are changing the landscape of the economy and how cryptocurrencies come into the picture
• The need to create new rules to replace the old regulations that does not work

Bubble is not bad. It's good. Very good. A bubble is an indication that a new idea has appeared and infused itself into many minds. This is the society's feedback to the fact that somewhere there is a great pain.

In a longer term after each bubble companies like Google, Amazon, PayPal and Netflix that were changing the landscape of the economy survived. And, most importantly, they brought a lot more benefit to customers than old players.

Some have likened the bitcoin, ethereum, and initial coin offering (ICO) craze to Tulip Mania, believing that the bubble is getting ready to burst. But what was Tulip Mania? Today, the tulip continues as a mainstay of the country’s economic life, but it plays a much more important role as the cornerstone on which Holland’s leadership as the largest purveyor or plants and seeds in the world is built. More than 250,000 jobs are the product directly and indirectly of the flower markets. The country continues to be the largest player with a 52% share in global exports of flowers and plants.

The major fight is not over resources, it’s over talent. Let’s take a look at The Bubble Generation Inc., which unites the world of crypto and ICO. Most probably there are 90 scammers and rascals out of every 100 people, (How many people do you really bring value in your company?) but if you count together all ten of each hundred don’t you think that The Bubble Generation Inc. will become the leader in the number of attracted talents within the next two – five years?

It doesn’t mean it’s bad if it’s not clear! You need to take risk if you want to create something new and to create a new value. It is a law. Another explanation is that someone just wants to cover their ass (just in case). Let's call things by their own names - traditional banks hate the crypto. (A number of people, estimated to be in the thousands each year, are told that their bank has made a “commercial decision” to close their account because of crypto-based “source of funds”. Banks tend to offer no explanation and customers who ask for one are brushed off.) But this hatred is stemming from the lack of understanding, fear of uncertainty and laziness rather than anger. Their mindset is built on the past (instead of the future) and their decisions are conditioned "how to avoid something bad to happen” (instead of "how to help something good to grow easier and more convenient").

Cryptocurrencies don’t exactly have the best reputation thanks to their penchant for attracting unscrupulous people. But what if there was a currency that encouraged people to cooperate? What if people were incentivised by a spirit of growth, rather than of greed? A currency needs to grow with the people, not past them. In this regard, the crypto\ICO world would do well to have another kind of verification - verification of human values. Holacracy as a way to organize and manage, professed in this company, is a perfect fit to the nature of blockchain world. It should be added that the financial sector is one of the most "masculine", the technological one is the most masculine: in this context, crypto\ICO world is in double trouble.

It is only possible to give life to a new economy by giving it a certain degree of freedom (the opportunity to take risks, try, make mistakes and not be punished - the fear of making mistakes destroys any innovations: this is a long-proven axiom). We must admit that the old rules and regulations do not work if we really want to grow something new and useful for society. While the new ones are non-existent, they just have to be created. Therefore, the regulator should regulate with caution: not as a judge, but as a mentor. Regulators are able to kill anything, but no regulator is able to create something - this is the destiny of entrepreneurs. Given that rules are only being formed, players should not be punished for what was committed before their introduction. You shouldn’t regulate too harshly what has not yet appeared and formed - you can only kill it this way. We are for the fact that if regulation comes into conflict with logic, progress and benefit for clients - such regulation should be changed. Rules are not the Bible, they were invented looking up the past (instead of the future). They are created to help achieve some goal, and if the goal is changing, then the rules should change! This is something that challenges us to study it, to help it grow.

Vladislav Solodkiy is managing partner at Life.SREDA, a fintech-focused, Singapore-based venture capital firm, and author of the book “The First Fintech Bank’s Arrival”. The views expressed herein are strictly of the author.

Categories:

Opinions, Payments, Risk and Regulation, Transaction Banking

comment,Payments,Risk and Regulation,Transaction Banking,

Opinions,Payments,Risk and Regulation,Transaction Banking,

Keywords:SEPA, PSD2, EBA, TPP, Payments