In the wave of digital innovation and technological advances, effective governance is drowning. Technology is changing faster than policies can keep up with, and we’re paying the price. In the last two years alone, we’ve seen unprecedented data breaches, meddling in elections, and the spread of misinformation. In the midst of this crisis one thing is clear: our digital era desperately needs public diplomacy. Public diplomacy is a term that is often discussed but not always fully understood (especially as it pertains to the digital world). The University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy (CPD) defines it as “the public, interactive dimension of diplomacy which is not only global in nature, but also involves a multitude of actors and networks.” Furthermore, “It is a key mechanism through which nations foster mutual trust and productive relationships and has become crucial to building a secure global environment.” Digital diplomacy is taking these same actors and networks and bringing them together to decide the best technological and digital practices. Last month, CPD, the Embassy of Sweden, and the Digital Diplomacy Coalition convened representatives from the public and private sectors to discuss digital diplomacy for the digital future. During the conference, Senior Researcher Jacob Poushter at the Pew Research Center presented findings from the United States and around the world concerning trust in digital practices and governance. Some of this research was not surprising. For instance, surveys found that younger people are more likely to receive their daily news from social media than older people are. Additionally, people around the world reported being concerned about losing their jobs due to automation. What’s surprising, though, was that people in the United States reported having lower levels of trust in tech companies to make the right decisions compared to other countries. They also reported low levels of trust in the government, and social media sites to protect their data. Furthermore, amongst many Americans—especially Republicans—there is a growing sentiment that social media platforms censor political speech. And even though Americans reported being distrusting of tech companies, they reported a preference for tech companies taking action to limit misinformation online over government action. It seems that a complicated paradox is arising when it comes to the balance between tech companies and the government in governing technology. Businessman and diplomat Fadi Chehade further acknowledged the growing distrust in government and technology around the world. When it comes to the internet, the infrastructure layer is the most well-governed. The upper societal and economic layers are, on the other hand, difficult to govern. Part of the reason this could be is because, according to Chehade, the internet was not built for geopolitical borders. To resolve this, there needs to be global, cross-sector collaboration and cooperation to create effective solutions to govern technology in the modern world. Collaboration on a global scale, while important, will not be easy. For one, there is an inherent contradiction when we talk about digital diplomacy: public diplomacy uses top-down methods to influence foreign policy, while the digital world operates from the bottom up. Moreover, there is little incentive for governments and corporations around the world to cooperate across borders. Is there a way to meet in the middle and incentivize cooperation between tech companies and governing bodies? Moira Whelan, founder of Blue Dot Strategies, suggested that authenticity may be the solution to bridging this gap. “Authenticity is really a key component”, she remarked, “...we can’t look to governments to act like a tech startup and we can’t look at tech startups to have the concerns of government[s]. What we need to do is...be authentically who we are and look for those points where we can cross over and build new things.” As public distrust grows and technology pervades every aspect of our daily lives, it’s crucial that we work together and find approaches to effectively govern technology. Without digital diplomacy, our privacy, and our democracy, are on the line.

But it’s difficult to think about value when we have no buoy for understanding it outside our traditional lenses: for example, our time, our job, and what others tell us they are worth in cash. This, largely, is the world’s paradigm for value so far. But understanding what value really means changes everything—and will be at the center of the decentralized revolution in global coordination that will unfold over the next decade. So, where do we begin?

Let’s start with gold.

Gold is an inherent value. When backing a market, gold allows us to grow a balanced economy well into the trillions. But why does it allow for massive stable markets to form around it? It is gold's permanence that creates stability. We understand that gold will always have value, because it is inherent in all of us, not just in one part of the world, but everywhere, not just today, but tomorrow and for the long haul.

In the 1930s when the gold standard was removed, we learned that the U.S. dollar didn’t need gold to back its economy to flourish. We learned that it was just a symbol for U.S. citizens to decentralize their coordination around the United States economy.

It turns out, common agreement is a philosophy for building shared economy.

And so it seems inherent value is a marker for us to begin exploring what the future could look like—a future beyond gold and the existing realm of credit. And so what else has inherent value? Is education as valuable as gold? What about healthcare? What about a vote that can’t be tampered with? What about an ID that can’t be stolen or erased? What about access to nutrition or clean water? You will find value everywhere you look.

It turns out, we’ve already done the legwork necessary to uncover the most elemental inherent values: The Sustainable Development Goals are commitments grown out of the drive to bring to life basic tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the closest possible social contract we have to a global, common agreement.

We’ve already agreed, as a global community, to ensure inclusive and equitable access to quality education. We’ve already agreed to empower all women and girls, to ensure pure and clean water access for all, to promote health at all stages of life, and to end hunger.

We’ve already agreed.

Our agreements are grounded in deep value centers that are globally shared, but undervalued and unfulfilled. The reason for this is our inability to quantify intangible value. All of these rich, inherent values are still nebulous and fragmented in implementation—largely existing as ideals and blueprints for deep, globally shared common agreement. That is, we all agree education, health, and equality have value, but we lack common units for understanding who and who is not contributing value—leaving us to fumble in our own, uncoordinated siloes as we chase the phantoms of impact. In essence, we lack common currencies for our common agreements.

Now we find ourselves at the nexus of the real paradigm of Blockchain, allowing us to fuse economics with inherent value by proving the participation of some great human effort, then quantifying the impact of that effort in unforgeable and decentralized ledgers. It allows us to build economic models for tomorrow, that create wholly new markets and economies for and around each of the richest of human endeavors.

In late 2017 at the height of the Bitcoin bubble, without individual coordination, planning, or the help of institutions, almost $1 trillion was infused into blockchain markets. This is remarkable, and the revolution has only just begun. When you realize that Blockchain is in a similar stage of development as the internet pre-AOL, you will see a glimpse of the global transformation to come.

Only twice in the information age have we had such a paradigm shift in global infrastructure reform—the computer and the internet. While the computer taught us how to store and process data, the Internet built off that ability and furthered the conversation by teaching us how to transfer that information. Blockchain takes another massive step forward—it builds off the internet, adding to the story of information storage and transfer—but, it teaches us a new, priceless and not yet understood skill: how to transfer value.

This third wave kicked off with a rough start—as happens with the birth of new technologies and their corresponding liberties. Blockchain has, thus far, been totally unregulated. Many, doubtless, have taken advantage. A young child, stretching their arms for the first couple times might knock over a cookie jar or two. Eventually, however, they learn to use their faculties—for evil or for good. As such, while it’s wise to be skeptical at this phase in blockchain’s evolution, it’s important not to be blind to its remarkable implications in a post-regulated world, so that we may wield its faculties like a surgeon’s scalpel—not for evil or snake-oil sales, but for the creation of more good, for the flourishing of commonwealth.

But what of the volatility in blockchain markets? People agree Bitcoin has value, but they don’t understand why they are in agreement, and so cryptomarkets fluctuate violently.  Stable blockchain economies will require new symbolic gold standards that clearly articulate why someone would agree to support each market, to anchor common agreement with stability. The more globally shared these new value standards, the better.

Is education more valuable than gold? What about healthcare or nutrition or clean water?

We set out in 2018 to prove a hypothesis—we believe that if you back a cryptocurrency economy with a globally agreed upon inherent value like education, you can solve for volatility and stabilize a mature long lasting cryptomarket that awards everyone who adds value to that market in a decentralized way without the friction of individual partnerships.

What if education was a new gold standard?

And what if this new Learning Economy had protocols to award everyone who is helping to steward the growth of global education?

Education is a mountain. Everyone takes a different path to the top. Blockchain allows us to measure all of those unique learning pathways, online and in classrooms, into immutable blockchain Learning Ledgers.

By quantifying the true value of education, a whole economy can be built around it to pay students to learn, educators to create substantive courses, and stewards to help the Learning Economy grow. It was designed to provide a decentralized way for everyone adding value to global education to coordinate around the commonwealth without the friction of individual partnerships. Imagine the same for healthcare, nutrition, and our environment?

Imagine a world where we can pay refugees to learn languages as they find themselves in foreign lands, a world where we can pay those laid off by the tide of automation to retrain themselves for the new economy, a world where we can pay the next generation to prepare themselves for the unsolved problems of tomorrow.

Imagine new commonwealth economies that alleviate the global burdens of poverty, disease, hunger, inequality, ignorance, toxic water, and joblessness. Commonwealths that orbit inherent values, upheld by immutable blockchain protocols that reward anyone in the ecosystem stewarding the economy—whether that means feeding the hungry, providing aid for the global poor, delivering mosquito nets in malaria-ridden areas, or developing transformative technologies that can provide a Harvard-class education to anyone in the world willing to learn.

These worlds are not out of reach—we are only now opening our eyes to the horizons of blockchain, decentralized coordination, and new gold standards. Even though coordination is the last of the seventeen sustainable development goals, when solved, its tide will lift for the rest—a much-needed rocket fuel for global prosperity.

“Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair.”  —George Washington
Hannah Bergstrom
Hannah Bergstrom is a Diplomatic Courier Correspondent and Brand Ambassador for the Learning Economy.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.