Podcast Exploring Decentralisation With Stephen Griffin’s Latest Book

Decentralisation - Blockchain and the evolution of power money and mind

Podcast Conversation: Exploring Decentralisation with Stephen Griffin’s Book

Sally: Imagine a world where you truly controlled your money, your information wasn't censored, and you had a direct say in the decisions that affect your life.

John: Sounds pretty radical, right?

Sally: Yeah, it does. Well, today we're diving deep into the ideas in Stephen Griffin's book, Decentralisation: Blockchain and the Evolution of Power, Money, and Mind. We want to see if this future is, you know, actually within reach, and what it might really look like for you.

John: Right. It’s all about decentralisation as Griffin lays it out, looking at this big shift—a shift away from those central authorities: governments, banks, big corporations—towards individuals. A lot of this is powered by technologies like blockchain.

Sally: So our mission today, listener, is to unpack the most important insights from Griffin’s work. We’ll explore the exciting potential, the benefits, but also get real about the challenges because there are definitely challenges.

John: Definitely. We want to leave you feeling informed, maybe inspired, but definitely not overwhelmed by jargon or anything too abstract.

Sally: Okay, so let’s unpack this. Where does this whole push for decentralisation even come from? Feels very modern, but…

John: That’s a great question, and it’s interesting because Griffin shows us decentralisation isn’t really new at all. History seems to swing back and forth, you know, between centralised control and more spread-out power.

Sally: Like a pendulum.

John: Kind of, yeah. Ancient Mesopotamia: power concentrated with priests, kings—they controlled resources, even the stories people heard. Jump to medieval Europe: feudal lords, the church held sway over land, lives. Even modern systems provide order, sure, but they also limit individual control in certain ways. So across thousands of years, you see this push and pull—it’s like a fundamental human thing, wanting security but also wanting autonomy. Decentralisation now just feels like the latest swing, but amplified by tech.

Sally: Yeah, it’s that age-old trade-off, isn’t it? You feel secure, but maybe you give up some control. Like being a kid’s safe, maybe, but not calling the shots.

John: Exactly. But Griffin points out, history’s also full of these moments where central control starts to fray. These cracks in the system, he calls them.

Sally: Precisely. He uses the fall of the Roman Empire as a big example. Huge unified power structure, but it crumbled eventually—internal issues, pressure from more decentralised groups. And fast forward, the internet itself—that’s a massive decentralisation of information, right? Info that was locked up is suddenly everywhere. No single authority can really control that global flow.

John: And it seems like the powers that be are definitely noticing this shift now.

Sally: Oh, for sure. You see this tightening grip in some areas. The push for digital IDs, more crypto regulation, pressure on social media platforms—it’s like a reaction to feeling control slip away.

John: Exactly. As Griffin puts it, it’s a natural reaction, which ironically almost seems to make people want decentralisation more. Like seeing the control makes you want the opposite.

Sally: That’s a key point he makes. Griffin really sees decentralisation as a major 21st-century movement. It’s driven by tech, yes, but also financial pressures and just a real shift in how people think about power. And the 2008 financial crisis was a big catalyst.

John: Huge. It directly led to Bitcoin in 2009—that wasn’t just code; it was a statement about trust in the old systems. And then you get things like Ethereum, which lets you automate trust with smart contracts, and Polkadot connecting different blockchains. It’s all rapidly changing how power and money work.

Sally: And Griffin gives some really great real-world examples. It’s not just tech talk. This freedom is in action. He talks about farmers in Africa using Stellar, a blockchain, to get paid directly, bypassing banks. It’s a bit like those Silk Road traders centuries ago, finding ways around empires to trade.

John: These examples, they’re not just about money. They show a fundamental shift in who has power, how we govern ourselves, even how we think.

Sally: He uses that analogy of a teenager leaving home, which I thought really landed.

John: Yeah, it’s good, isn’t it? You get the freedom, the car keys, but suddenly you’ve got to fix the flat tire yourself.

Sally: That’s it exactly—more freedom, more responsibility. And Griffin makes a crucial point here: technology is often moving way faster than we are, faster than our ability to use these powerful tools wisely.

John: Yeah, that really hit home for me. He mentions things like the DAO hack in 2016—money lost, not because of a tech flaw, but human error. Or the whole NFT craze—sometimes hype just took over any real value. And even with crypto ownership, lots of people buy it, then lose it or sell impulsively because they don’t get the security side.

Sally: Exactly. And look at governance. These DAOs, these online.Symbol groups trying to run things on blockchains—they’re meant to change traditional systems, right? But often, people are hesitant to fully embrace that self-governance. They still kind of want a leader. Griffin uses a strong image.

John: Yeah, a child with a loaded gun—powerful tool, but without the maturity and responsibility, things can go wrong. Seriously wrong.

Sally: And history warns us too, right? Just because something is decentralized doesn’t automatically make it better.

John: That’s a really important question Griffin raises. History shows this again and again. The printing press led to the Enlightenment, yes, but also fueled wars as ideas clashed. The internet decentralized information, but boom—misinformation breeding ground. DeFi offers financial freedom, but if you’re not careful, scams, losses.

Sally: So the tech isn’t enough on its own.

John: Exactly. The key insight is, for this shift to be truly positive, we need to develop the wisdom, the responsibility to handle these tools.

Sally: Okay, so let’s zoom in on probably the most famous example, Bitcoin. Griffin really paints this as the start of a financial revolution.

John: Yeah, what’s fascinating is how he frames it—the core idea: you, the individual, control your money, not a bank, not some financial company. Bitcoin, starting in 2009, it’s a fundamental break from those centralized systems, a way to trade, trust, own value without the traditional gatekeepers.

Sally: He talks about the old guard of money—states, regulators, banks—holding the power for centuries, and the downsides of that centralisation. If you look at the bigger picture, history’s full of problems from that top-down control: inflation wiping out savings, economic crashes, people just excluded entirely from the system.

John: Yeah. Griffin mentions things like savings vanishing in the 1930s, 2008 bailouts that often hurt ordinary people. He uses the term “broken money” for the current system’s reliance on endless money printing, which he argues just makes inequality and instability worse.

Sally: And it’s that feeling—the system is failing, that lack of trust—that really sparked things like Bitcoin?

John: Absolutely. Bitcoin was a direct response to that 2008 meltdown, a move away from central authorities. And Griffin highlights its impact is bigger than just payments. He calls it digital property—like digital gold, kind of—making ownership possible even with small amounts, unlike, say, buying property. And crucially, unlike regular digital stuff, Bitcoin transactions can’t be easily copied or changed. That prevents double-spending, keeps it secure.

Sally: So what are the main principles behind this financial revolution? Griffin lays out quite a few.

John: Yeah, and each one is pretty key to what makes Bitcoin different. First, obviously decentralisation itself—no single boss, makes it resistant to censorship, government interference.

Sally: It’s like owning your house outright, he says—no landlord.

John: Exactly. Then there’s the fixed supply—only 21 million coins ever—that creates scarcity, potentially helps hold value. Like there’s only so much water on Earth.

Sally: Right. He also explains proof of work versus proof of stake, which can sound a bit technical.

John: It can, but the core difference matters. Bitcoin uses proof of work—these miners use significant energy, significant effort, like solving super complex puzzles, to secure the network and make new Bitcoin.

Sally: And he mentions the energy use shifting towards renewables.

John: Yeah, he points out more mining is using things like geothermal in Iceland, wind farms in Texas, especially tapping into excess energy. This is different from proof of stake, which lots of other cryptos use.

Sally: Where you lock up coins you already own.

John: Right, you stake them. Griffin emphasises that Bitcoin’s energy cost provides a real, tangible security layer, makes it much harder to attack than proof of stake, where maybe someone with a ton of money could gain too much influence.

Sally: Okay. And then principles like being borderless and permissionless—that sounds huge for accessibility.

John: It really is. You can send Bitcoin anywhere, receive it anywhere, no permission needed from a bank or government. It’s powerful for people outside the traditional system. Griffin says, “It’s money that doesn’t care about your passport.”

Sally: Yeah, I liked that line. Then you’ve got trustless transactions—the network verifies everything globally.

John: Trust is built into the code, not reliant on a middleman. And the potential for cheaper transactions, especially with upgrades like the Lightning Network, makes it more practical for everyday stuff.

Sally: Yeah. Plus, it’s always on, 24/7. And the secure ledger—transparent but private.

John: Exactly. Transactions can’t be changed. It’s a permanent, verifiable record. Think of it like the world’s first public digital payments infrastructure.

Sally: And these aren’t just abstract ideas. He gives some powerful real-world examples.

John: Yeah, this is where it gets really compelling. Seeing how Bitcoin can be a lifeline in countries with serious financial instability. He mentions Venezuela, Zimbabwe—places where hyperinflation just destroyed their currencies. Bitcoin offered something more stable.

Sally: Right, people protecting savings in Nigeria, farmers in Zimbabwe trading for supplies.

John: Exactly. He tells that story of Maria in Caracas in 2018, using Bitcoin to buy food during the crisis. And talks about humanitarian workers using it—people in places like Palestine where banking is disrupted.

Sally: And remittances, too—sending money home.

John: Huge impact there. Griffin points out that by 2022, using Bitcoin for remittances saved migrants billions in fees. That’s money going straight to families, not intermediaries. And he highlights Bitcoin’s resilience in crises—Cyprus in 2013, Ukraine in 2022—helping people protect assets when banks were shaky.

Sally: Of course, it’s not all smooth sailing. Griffin addresses the challenges, the growing pains.

John: For sure. You see wildly different government approaches—acceptance, bans—creates uncertainty, slows adoption.

Sally: Yeah. Plus, let’s be honest, understanding and using Bitcoin can be technically tricky for some people. And the environmental concerns about proof of work energy use are real, though there are solutions being worked on, like using surplus renewables.

John: And then there’s the famous volatility—the price swings—and the bubble or scam accusations. Prices jump around a lot, makes it risky for some.

Sally: Griffin also touches on the theoretical future risk of quantum computers cracking Bitcoin’s security, though he argues traditional finance would likely be even more vulnerable.

John: But despite all these challenges, Griffin sees a fundamental shift happening in how people think about money.

Sally: Yeah, he describes it as moving towards self-sovereignty, taking more control over your own finances, like money’s mind awakening. Individuals becoming more financially independent, which requires a new level of financial literacy, as he points out. You can’t just jump in blind.

John: Absolutely not. Being your own bank means understanding how it works—private keys, wallets, fees, the risks of losing keys or getting scammed. He mentions tools like multi-sig wallets for better security.

Sally: Right. But he stresses Bitcoin doesn’t coddle you. It kind of expects users to grow up financially.

John: He also mentions Bitcoin ETFs as maybe an easier entry point for some, though you lose some direct control benefits.

Sally: Exactly, that’s the trade-off. Griffin wraps up this section saying, Bitcoin is more than just tech. It’s a potential revolution—philosophical, economic. A spark for a possibly fairer financial future, if we step up and take the responsibility.

Sally: Okay, so from money, Griffin moves to information becoming more decentralized. And he draws a really interesting parallel to Bitcoin.

John: Yeah, it’s fascinating. He sees the breakdown of traditional media monopolies mirroring Bitcoin’s disruption of finance. The internet, he says, is like the public infrastructure for info.

Sally: Right. And Bitcoin extends that idea to payments. But this shift means we have to change from just passively consuming info to actively seeking it out, judging what’s true.

John: He talks about the long reign of traditional media—how a few players controlled the narrative for so long, often working with governments or corporations, sometimes censorship, even propaganda.

Sally: Yeah, if you look at the bigger picture, concentrated control over information has always limited viewpoints, shaped beliefs. Griffin gives examples like Pravda in the Soviet Union or more subtle media influence elsewhere, like the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003.

John: Exactly. Media played a huge role in building support, even with massive global protests against it. And now, in the digital age, things have changed, but Griffin argues we’ve almost become the product on social media platforms.

Sally: Right. They make money collecting our data, selling it to advertisers. Their algorithms often prioritise engagement—what keeps us scrolling—not necessarily what’s true or honest.

John: Yeah, he mentioned algorithm changes on platforms like X in 2024 that seem to amplify more extreme stuff. He suggests we might move towards directly funding good info—subscriptions, small payments, maybe decentralized platforms where you earn from ads you choose to see, keeping your data private.

Sally: But the internet has also been this incredibly powerful force for spreading information more widely, hasn’t it? He calls it a rebellion.

John: Absolutely. Blogs, citizen journalism, platforms like X, YouTube—they’ve let individuals share their own stories, challenge the official narratives.

Sally: Like the Arab Spring?

John: A key example, yeah. Activists using social media to bypass state news, share evidence, get global support. And now blockchain tech is pushing this even further. He gives really powerful examples of blockchain protecting information, empowering truth-tellers.

Sally: It’s fascinating. The potential for encrypted info shared securely, safe from censorship.

John: He mentions an activist in Myanmar using a blockchain to record military crimes.

Sally: Wow.

John: A coder in Ukraine sharing truthful war info on decentralized platforms, using decentralized servers run by people globally—makes it incredibly hard for any one authority to shut it down.

Sally: And then he introduces platforms like Nostr as maybe an even more radical step.

John: Yeah, Nostr, as he describes it, gives users direct control via private keys—an un-censorable voice. Because it’s peer-to-peer, no central company, it’s super resistant to censorship. So a teacher could share banned lessons, an artist could share work without fear. That’s the potential.

Sally: But as Griffin points out, funding these networks, getting widespread adoption—those are still big hurdles.

John: Griffin also mentions other blockchain projects specifically for journalism, human rights work. Platforms like Civil, Mirror, Everipedia, DAOs like Press DAO—they’re exploring ways to fund journalism directly, create tamperproof records of information.

Sally: Then it’s about protecting content, empowering creators, more transparency.

John: Exactly. But again, making these tools user-friendly, educating people—that’s crucial for success.

Sally: One big promise of blockchain here is acting as a truth anchor, right? Time-stamping permanent records of news.

John: Precisely. Platforms like Civil tried putting articles on the Ethereum blockchain—couldn’t be changed. Everipedia uses blockchain to show how info is verified, building trust. But that raises tricky questions, doesn’t it? Like the right to be forgotten.

Sally: What if false info gets permanently recorded?

John: Yeah, it’s complicated. Griffin touches on that, and the role of oracles verifying info, how blockchain might make politicians more accountable. But this freedom of information has a huge potential downside too—misinformation spreading even faster. This is a really important question Griffin digs into.

Sally: It’s a double-edged sword. False info, amplified by AI, spread by influencers—it can travel incredibly fast. He mentions the Fukushima radiation myths.

John: Right. And on decentralised platforms with no central control, stopping harmful content is tough. New tech like zero-knowledge neural networks might help identify bad stuff while protecting privacy, but it’s complex.

Sally: He draws a parallel to Haiti’s early currency—even in freedom movements, misinformation can cause problems.

John: Yeah, and he reminds us about echo chambers on platforms like Facebook, and how blockchain, while anchoring truth, can also cement lies.

Sally: So just like with money, this decentralisation of information demands more responsibility from us, the users.

John: Absolutely. Griffin argues we need to grow up as information consumers—take responsibility for figuring out what’s true, check different sources, seek diverse perspectives. Shift from passive acceptance to active searching.

Sally: Exactly. He sees potential for a global network of minds connected by blockchain, but warns it could lead to more understanding or more division if we don’t develop critical thinking and commit to truth.

John: It comes back to the challenge of self-governance in this new info landscape. Okay, so we’ve covered decentralised money, decentralised information. Now the third key area—governance. He starts with a really relatable example.

Sally: Yeah, I like this start. Think about potholes that never get fixed. Traditional governance can be slow, bureaucratic.

John: Griffin asks, what if tech, specifically blockchains, let communities make decisions, allocate resources more directly, more efficiently? Building on decentralised money and info, asking if we can use blockchains to cut out the middleman in how we organise ourselves.

Sally: Exactly. And the main example here is DAOs—decentralised autonomous organisations. Quick rundown.

John: Sure, think of them like online communities, online clubs where the rules are code on a blockchain. They’re decentralised, no single boss, automated smart contracts execute decisions. Often autonomous community voting, maybe using real-world data feeds. Sounds promising—open, inclusive. But he mentions weaknesses too.

Sally: Yeah, code bugs can be exploited. Sometimes there are hidden central points that kind of undermine the whole decentralised idea.

John: He also points out that self-governance isn’t new and looks at history for lessons.

Sally: Right. If you look back, communities have always found ways to manage themselves—Egyptian villages resolving disputes, market traders setting rules. But as societies got bigger, centralised power often took over, sometimes sprouting, debuting progress, sure, but also potential for corruption, rot.

John: Blockchain offers a new approach, combining tech and community. But history warns that self-governance is fragile, and new elites could emerge.

Sally: Exactly. Like powerful developers or big miners in a DAO ecosystem controlling things—it’s a risk.

John: But blockchain does offer unique possibilities for governance, doesn’t it?

Sally: Oh, absolutely. Beyond just voting, it can automatically do things based on decisions, so it’s not just about money. He gives examples like that Ukrainian drone DAO raising millions.

John: Yeah, or a Kenyan village managing a well, Maker DAO using quadratic voting for fairer stablecoin governance. Even Constitution DAO—vote failed, its main goal—but showed how fast decentralised groups can organise and pool money. And things like digital ballots in Prospera or how Linux develops—all those are real-world examples already happening.

Sally: But self-rule comes with challenges. Big ones.

John: Definitely. This raises another important question Griffin explores. Big votes with lots of people can be slow. Technical glitches, like that 2016 DAO hack, can be disastrous. And getting people to actually participate—low voter turnout, apathy—huge issues, even in DAOs.

Sally: Sometimes only a tiny fraction votes. Weak incentives, complex systems—it all adds up.

John: Potential fixes exist—rewarding voting, simplifying debates, off-chain discussions—but getting real engagement is tough. There’s also that tension between green tech and true decentralisation, especially with proof of stake.

Sally: That’s a crucial point. Proof of stake uses way less energy than proof of work, which is good. But there’s a risk power tilts towards those holding the most coins—kind of goes against the decentralised ideal.

John: So we might need ethical codes, power-sharing rules within those systems?

Sally: Griffin suggests things like that, yeah—finding that balance. But he does paint an interesting picture of future governance using these tools.

John: He does. He imagines hybrids, like Estonia’s e-residency linking traditional government with blockchain tools. He even speculates about DAOs running cities someday—faster, cheaper, more direct decisions. Inspired by Switzerland’s referendums, maybe?

Sally: Possibly, yeah. He gives a practical example—a hypothetical Greystone votes app for local issues, potholes, parks—highlighting quicker responses, faster crisis response compared to, say, the 2004 tsunami response lag.

John: But always with that tension between openness and preventing fraud.

Sally: Always—it’s the frontier. Okay, so after looking at money, info, and governance, Griffin asks the really big question: Utopia or Chaos? Where could all this lead?

John: Yeah, this is where he pulls it all together. After exploring the potential in each area, he steps back. Can decentralising these fundamental parts of life actually create a better world? Or are we just heading for disorder?

Sally: He definitely sees promising signs—these glimmers of utopia.

John: Absolutely. Bitcoin disrupting banks, providing access, decentralised funding for education, transparent ledgers, maybe less inflation, Web3 connecting billions, crowdsourced knowledge, DAOs running cities potentially, faster crisis response, hybrid models—it paints a hopeful picture.

Sally: But then the flip side—the potential for chaos. And he doesn’t shy away from it. This raises a critical question about the risks. Crypto scams, FTX, Squid Game Token, unemployment, shadow markets.

John: Lies spreading on decentralised platforms, bots, echo chambers.

Sally: Right. DAOs stalling, low turnout, power hoarding, code flaws. And the worry that lack of central coordination could actually hinder crisis response.

John: And Griffin’s point is, it’s not fate. It’s a choice we’re making.

Sally: Precisely. Whether we drift towards Utopia or Chaos depends on our maturity, our responsibility in using these tools—using them for good, like funding Ukraine drones.

John: Right. Or actively sifting truth, actively participating in governance, finding balance, maybe using hybrid systems. ButWAN the ongoing challenges are real—scalability, apathy, anarchy.

Sally: He notes people act when stakes are personal but might ignore distant issues. He sums it up as a test for this trinity: Money, Minds, Power.

John: Exactly. Money: freedom or fraud. Minds: wisdom or bots. Power: unity or chaos. History cycles, blockchain’s the tool now. Utopia means a shared rise in responsibility. Chaos means we failed the test.

Sally: And he teases the final part—science and consciousness as the missing link. Which brings us to maybe the most mind-bending part of the book in our discussion. The missing link—science, consciousness, and true maturity.

John: Griffin argues the biggest shift isn’t just external—finance, info, governance—it needs to happen inside us, in our mind.

Sally: Yeah, he shifts the focus inward, suggests whether decentralisation works out well or badly ultimately hinges on our responsibility, our maturity as individuals. He challenges us: stop just blaming external systems, look at our own role. Are we part of the problem or the solution?

John: That’s the fundamental question he poses. And he notes how much we resist looking inward. It’s easier to blame outside forces, right?

Sally: But he wants us to think about our own contribution to the chaos we complain about. Understanding our own fears, motivations—that’s the first step. He even brings in that quantum physics idea—maybe our intentions actually impact reality.

John: Which leads to this really challenging question: Are we ready? Are we ready for this level of freedom and control?

Sally: Yeah, this raises a really important point. He asks us to look at our own behavior—complain about dishonesty in institutions, but maybe we’re dishonest in small ways. Criticise biased media, but only consume stuff that confirms our views. Dislike selfishness but hoard our own resources. It’s about that gap between ideals and actions.

John: So decentralisation gives us the tools—Bitcoin, platforms, DAOs—but how they work depends on us stepping up?

Sally: Exactly. He suggests true decentralisation isn’t just tech. It needs a shift in how we think. And science might be hinting reality is more flexible than we assume.

John: Yeah, this is fascinating, moving beyond a purely physical worldview. He points out limitations in explaining things like love, meaning, weird experiences—psi phenomena.

Sally: Like telepathy. He mentions things like monks sensing quakes, parental intuition. Opening the door to the idea that our minds might play a more active role in shaping reality than mainstream science usually admits.

John: He even touches on quantum physics—that double-slit experiment, research linking thought to the physical world. He talks about experiments suggesting attention influences particles, hints at deeper connections, acknowledges it’s debated, sure, but points to growing data suggesting reality is more interconnected, more mind-influenced than we think.

Sally: And this leads back to the maturity test. More freedom needs more wisdom. Just like financial literacy for Bitcoin, critical thinking for info, we need deeper self-understanding.

John: Exactly. He mentions the physicist Tom Campbell’s idea—consciousness is fundamental. Reality is like a virtual reality from a larger consciousness system. Those weird coincidences—maybe features, not bugs.

Sally: He also mentions the HeartMath Institute, connecting heart rhythms to collective well-being, suggesting inner states matter a lot.

John: So the implications for decentralisation are huge then. If our minds influence reality, true power is within us, not just in the tools.

Sally: Absolutely. Griffin argues our intentions, actions send Penal Code send out waves of intent with real effects. Tech amplifies us, but our inner state—integrity, strength—determines how we use that power. Stop blaming, start acting—what can I do?

John: He stresses even small daily choices are like votes, shaping our reality—how we treat people, what we focus on, if we engage.

Sally: Precisely. Own our piece of the world, don’t just blame the system. Bad things still happen.

John: Yes. But take responsibility for our response, cultivate inner strength, identify fears driving negative behaviour, choose better reactions.

Sally: And this inner shift could scale up, leading to a future where honesty, cooperation, self-led learning are more common because people have changed internally. That’s the vision he paints.

John: He sees consciousness research as key to humanity maturing alongside tech. Decentralisation isn’t just cutting middlemen; it’s cutting our own internal limitations, excuses. The real test is moving from knowing to acting.

Sally: That’s it. The missing link, he argues, is ours to forge. It’s up to each of us.

John: So as we wrap up this deep dive into decentralisation, what’s the main message Stephen Griffin leaves us with? Especially for you, our listener.

Sally: I think the key takeaway is this: Decentralisation offers incredible potential, yes, changing power, money, information. But its ultimate success really depends on our own growth as individuals—becoming more responsible, more discerning, more actively involved.

John: Yeah. We hope you’ve had some aha moments today, maybe learned some surprising things. We’ve tried to unpack these big ideas without drowning you in jargon.

Sally: Ultimately, the book suggests the future of this decentralised world hinges on our capacity for what Griffin calls true maturity—that willingness to take ownership, cultivate wisdom, and act with real intention.

John: So now that you’ve taken this deep dive with us, maybe consider this: What’s one small step you could take, starting today, to exercise a bit more conscious control—maybe in your digital life, your financial choices, or even just in your local community?

Sally: Perhaps that small step is actually the most significant one towards shaping the decentralised future we’ve talked about today.

John: Thank you for joining us on this deep dive

.