How cryptocurrencies are disrupting Nation-States, part 1 of 2
Why E-gold and Liberty Reserve were crushed as Bitcoin soared
Note : this article is the 5th in a series on the disruption of nation-states by the Internet.
Here are the fourteen articles in the series:
How the Internet makes Governments Impotent to Tackle Bottlenecks
How cryptocurrencies are disrupting Nation-States, part 1 of 2
How cryptocurrencies are disrupting Nation-States, part 2 of 2
Digital Shadows: How the Internet Empowers Anonymity and Challenges Governments
How the Internet prevents governments from enforcing their laws
Where it hurts most: how the Internet makes it harder for governments to collect taxes
The Web of Fraud: How the Internet Exposes Nation-States' Weaknesses
“Cryptos” before Bitcoin : E-gold and Douglas Jackson
Douglas, an oncologist, used an analysis similar to that of many crypto-currency creators, criticizing the U.S. dollar, which since 1971 has not been backed by gold, and whose value comes just from the trust people place in them.
But he was a little more pioneering than the others: he created this digital currency based on gold reserves... in 1996 (!).
Users could open an online account, denominated in grams of gold or other precious metals, and make instant transfers of value to other E-gold accounts. At its peak in 2006, E-gold processed over $2 billion in transactions per year, on a monetary basis of $71 million in gold.
It was the first digital currency to be massively adopted by users and merchants alike. A resounding success.
But with its success inevitably came its use by criminals, facilitated by the fact that the company did not perform any identity checks.
That's not a real problem, is it? If you know anything about cryptocurrencies, you know that no identity verification is required to use them1 , and that yes, criminals do use them, but that they represent a very small proportion of users and transactions2 .
Yes, but: E-gold suffered from a very significant flaw that many cryptocurrencies don't have.
It was a centralized currency, managed by a classic legal entity.
And where there's centralization and physical "incarnation", there's... vulnerability to government attacks, as we saw in a previous article with the example of Napster.
So what had to happen happened: after several years of investigation, the U.S. government charged Douglas Jackson and his company with money laundering, conspiracy and unlicensed money transfer services.
He eventually made a deal with the US justice system, pleading guilty, and was sentenced in 2007 to a relatively light sentence3 of 36 months of parole, including 6 months house arrest, 300 hours community service, a $1.2 million fine, and an obligation to comply with the law4 .
Despite valiant attempts by its founder, E-gold did not survive: the company was never able to acquire the licenses it needed to operate legally, and had to close down5 .
A sad story of an idealist who came up against the merciless cogs of soulless regulation, isn't it? Which teaches us to pay attention to these regulations, and respect the law, right ?
And yet…
Around the same time as the tragic story of E-gold was coming to an end, a new one was born, with a much brighter future: Bitcoin.
Bitcoin makes it possible to do everything E-Gold did, but on a much larger scale.
And yet its creator has never been arrested or prosecuted, and Bitcoin's adoption has grown steadily since its invention in 2008, reaching a user base Doug Jackson could only have dreamed of.
So, what's happened? What has changed between E-gold, whose founder was prosecuted in 2007, and Bitcoin, created a year later?
What has rendered governments powerless? What disrupts them in Bitcoin that didn't disrupt them in E-Gold?
That's what we're going to explore in this article and the next, as we dive into the fascinating bowels of cryptocurrencies.
But first things first: what is money?
The Mint's monopoly
Today, most countries have a monopoly on their official currency: they alone have the right to issue it6 , and oblige all natural and legal persons on their territory to accept it for all transactions.
This gives states enormous power, which until recently in history was limited by an important constraint: money was, in the overwhelming majority of cases, made of - or exchangeable with - metals that had intrinsic value - gold and silver7 .
In other words, in theory - and often in practice - you could take a silver or gold coin, melt it down, and resell the resulting metal at roughly the same price as that indicated on the coin.
During this period, to increase the amount of money circulating in the economy, states had only two main options:
Increase their gold and/or silver reserves
Decrease the quantity of these precious metals present in coins, thus creating more coins with the same quantity of these metals, and decreasing the intrinsic value of each coin, which was done on numerous occasions throughout history.
For example, here is the actual silver rate of silver coins in the Roman Empire, between 31 BC and 2508 :
As you can see, from almost 100% silver content at the beginning of the Empire, coins were down to 30% by 250: a coin therefore had three times less intrinsic value, while still having the same nominal value, thus diminishing confidence in the currency.
This was an important factor in the fall of the Roman Empire9.
But also in the fall of the Spanish, Dutch, British and many other empires10 .
The invention of the banknote introduced a third factor of control
More recently, a third factor was introduced when the banknote was invented:
Reduce the gold and silver reserves held in banks to cover demand if all banknote holders were to ask for their precious metal equivalents, thus instituting fractional reserve banking, and also reducing the intrinsic value of each banknote.
When banknotes were invented, they stated that they could be exchanged at the bank for the amount of gold or silver indicated on the bill.
People therefore saw banknotes as coupons entitling them to a quantity of gold or silver of similar value.
But since it was more convenient to exchange these bills directly from hand to hand, rather than having to go to the bank to take heavy, cumbersome precious metals in exchange, that's what people did.
And they soon came to regard the bills themselves as money, and as having value.
This led banks and governments to "cheat", increasing the number of banknotes without increasing their reserves of precious metals, counting on the fact that the risk of enough people asking to exchange their banknotes at the same time to the point of completely liquidating the reserve was low (which is true in normal times, but happens from time to time during major economic crises11).
This then leads these States (which at this stage have often regained control over the banks for the issuance of these bills) to completely suspend the convertibility of their bills.
Bank of England bills were exchangeable for gold between 1694 and 193112 , and US bills were exchangeable for gold and silver between 1792 and 1875, and for gold until 193313 .
Most countries abandoned the convertibility of their banknotes into precious metals around the same time.
In general, states stopped producing coins containing precious metals soon afterwards: for example, the USA stopped producing silver coins in 1965, replacing them with coins with no intrinsic value, Canada in 1968, Australia in 1963, Switzerland in 1967, and Great Britain earlier, in 1946.
Once banknotes are no longer convertible and coins no longer have any intrinsic value, their accepted value is based solely on the trust in the issuing state.
This works as long as people have overall confidence in the state, and it allows that state to print money in quantity when the need arises.
Here's how the U.S. has printed or created money, often to solve various crises (represented by gray bands on the diagram14 ):
As you can see, a huge amount of money was created by the United States during the crises of 2008 and 2020: the monetary base grew from $830 billion in January 2008, to $2,000 billion two years later (an increase of 240%) to $6,100 billion in January 2022 (an increase of 722% in 14 years).
This is basically the same strategy pursued by the European Union15 :
And by most countries with their own currency.
Why are these states creating so much money so quickly?
They always have good reasons for doing so, as we shall see.
But the fundamental point is that they do so because they can: if these states were to have a growing reserve of gold and silver to exchange these precious metals for the bills of those who demand them, and to create coins that have intrinsic value, this would fundamentally limit their ability to create more money.
The ability to print and create money on demand therefore gives states immense power.
And this, of course, gives them the ability to create money out of thin air during major crises, to, for example:
Paying the most disadvantaged to compensate for their losses during crises (as during the COVID confinements, which prevented many businesses from collapsing).
Bailing out banks that would otherwise fail, and which could drag many other banks down with them, thus preventing an economic crisis from getting too out of hand.
Partly finance state budgets, which in most developed countries are already in deficit every year, as tax revenues are not sufficient to cover expenditure.
Create inflation, which has many negative effects, as we'll see below, but also has the positive effect of reducing government debt: 5% inflation for 10 years means a 50% reduction in debt (note that this effect considerably strengthens the power of governments, to the detriment of the power of individuals and even their interests). Governments have no problem considering and implementing this kind of strategy when their debt becomes too unsustainable16.
The disadvantages
But critics point to numerous problems caused by this practice.
Creating more money almost always results in inflation directly correlated to the amount of money printed17 .
In the worst cases, this can even lead to hyperinflation, as in Germany from 1921 to 192418 (which had several periods when people used wheelbarrows as wallets) or the infamous Zimbabwe of the 2000s, with inflation estimated at 79.6 billion percent per month in 200819 - in 12 months, banknotes went from a denomination of $10 to $100 billion20.
But even without these extreme cases, inflation creates many problems:
It only benefits people close to the initial distribution of the money (as prices have not yet risen), often those in positions of power21.
The more money circulates in the economy, the more it pushes up prices (because the quantity of goods doesn't increase, so when stocks fall because the first people to benefit from this money buy more than usual, producers and sellers mechanically increase their prices, it's the law of supply and demand).
This price increase affects people all the more strongly when they are among the last to receive the money created: by the time they earn it, prices have already risen to take account of the extra money. The effect is not neutral, as these people often have insufficient income to compensate for the price increase: this is known as the "Cantillon effect".
This results in a loss of value for individuals, companies and institutions who have invested in22 government bonds: as these bonds are denominated in the currency of the government in question, they lose value as prices rise. For example, a 100-unit23 government bond can be used to buy 100 baguettes costing 1 unit each. If the price of baguettes rises to 2 units, that same government bond will only buy 50 baguettes instead of 100, making you that much poorer.
This is how governments use inflation to pay off part of their debts: they rob the people who trusted them, making them pay a tax in disguise for having been so stupid as to be so innocent.
Rescuing banks endangered by a crisis certainly helps to reduce an economic crisis in the short term, but is harmful in the long term because :
This saves institutions that had not put in place the good practices needed to survive a crisis, allowing bad actors who should have disappeared to continue to exist, thus corrupting the system instead of cleaning it up.
This shows other market players that they can take inordinate risks, because they know that they will then be "saved by the government", reinforcing a vicious circle in the ecosystem.
Allowing states to finance themselves in part by issuing money means accepting that the population will suffer the disguised tax of inflation - which affects the most disadvantaged in particular as we saw - while at the same time motivating these states not to have balanced budgets, corrupting the system in the long term.
States do not hesitate to use this ability to create money at will to finance wars, which thus last longer and cause far more deaths than if they were forced by money with real value24 .
For example, some economists25 argue that if the European countries concerned had not abandoned the Gold Standard, World War 1st would have lasted much less time26 , or never even started at all; that the economic crisis and hyperinflation that hit Germany would not have existed, or would not have been as severe, that the consequences of the anti-Semitism present in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century would not have reached the paroxysms of the Holocaust, because Germans would not have been so in search of scapegoats to "explain" their economic problems, and Hitler would therefore not have had fertile ground to spread his populist ideas - it is possible that World War 2nd - and the Holocaust - would never have taken place.
Note that this is a highly controversial position, which many traditional economists would refute, but it does have the merit of making us think about the impact on wars that separating the Currency from the State would have (more on this in the next article).
Until recently, this debate was rather theoretical, and in the end, modern states gain immense power from being able to create money at will... and are not prepared to give it up light-heartedly.
But, for the 1st time in history, a particular currency has been invented that has the potential to allow real experimentation to see who's right.
How crypto-currencies are disrupting this foundation
Another pioneering example crushed by the state
I already mentioned E-Gold at the start of this article, and it wasn't the only one to suffer such a fate: Costa Rica-based Liberty Reserve (2006-2013) was shut down by the US government after a multi-year investigation involving the police services of 17 countries.
Its founder, Arthur Budovsky, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for money laundering27.
His sentence was much harsher than Doug Jackson's, because 1) he had already received a 5-year suspended prison sentence for creating a similar service in the USA in the early 2000s, which he used to flee to Costa Rica, and 2) he had personally enriched himself with Liberty Reserve, rather than losing money like Doug.
So here we have two examples of private digital currencies with similar utility to bitcoin, but which were crushed by a government as soon as they reached a size large enough to be troublesome.
The 1st cryptocurrency unstoppable by states
And yet, around the same time as E-gold's tragic story ended, a new digital currency was born : for the 1st time in history, Bitcoin represents a digital currency that can operate with absolutely no government and even no central authority.
How Bitcoin works, and what makes it unstoppable by governments ?
It would be tedious to explain in detail how Bitcoin works, invented in 2008 by an anonymous person - or group of people - whose identity has never been revealed, answering to the gentle pseudonym of Satoshi Nakamoto, but here are the basics:
Bitcoin is based on a public database, which anyone can consult28: this is what makes it possible to ensure that a given Bitcoin (or fraction of a Bitcoin) has been sent to a given wallet (or address).
A public database is easy to consult, but normally has one major flaw - someone has to manage it to make it usable, which, when it comes to a database corresponding to money, leads to two problems:
You have to trust the person or entity that manages this database (this is what you do with your bank, which manages the database of its customers' money: your account is just a number in this database, with a history of entries and expenses).
This person or entity has enormous power and can, in theory, change entries, spend the same money twice, prevent you from accessing your money, etc. (this is what happens if the bank receives an order from the public authorities to freeze your account).
This works if you trust the person or entity responsible for this database (people trust their bank - for want of an alternative often - and also trust their government enough to make sure their bank doesn't do too much foolishness with their money).
But in the case of a digital currency that exists outside conventional institutions, how can you trust a potential manager of this currency? Bitcoin offers several solutions:
First of all, the database is decentralized: it exists in multiple places at the same time, in "nodes" that communicate with each other to synchronize. No one has privileged access to the database just because they're the only one with a copy.
In fact, it's extremely easy for anyone to host a copy of the Bitcoin database: you can do it with an entry-level computer, or that old computer lying around in your attic if it's not too old29 , you just need to have enough disk space (at the time of writing, the entire Bitcoin database can be stored on a micro-SD card that can fit on the pad of one of your fingers, and costs less than €20), and an Internet connection.
This database is very special: it's called a "blockchain". Great, but what exactly is a blockchain? Well, a blockchain is a chain of blocks. Thank you for reading this definition, goodbye.
Ok ok, just kidding. A blockchain means :
That the database is made up of blocks, in which information is updated (for example, that Paul sent 0.1 bitcoin to James is recorded in a block created on 31/08/2022 at 12:10).
Each block is linked to the previous block by a "hash". A hash is the result of a mathematical formula that takes the content of the previous block and derives a number that is inextricably linked to that content: if that content changed by just one character (for example, by adding a comma to a sentence, or a tenth of a bitcoin to a transaction), the final hash would be completely different.
For example, the sentence "This is a block of the Bitcoin blockchain, which confirms that Patrick sent 0.1 Bitcoin to David" has the hash
bbd5e53fcf27f43e5c4e97a47e76906f5f13b9d5e978f84bb854bc695a66dfb7
The sentence "This is a block of the Bitcoin blockchain, which confirms that Patrick sent 0.11 Bitcoin to David" has the hash
da7fde57b553d0740bdcf99a17c659e7c8d2673ef8cef959c15a194019db8c9b
As you can see, a single different character completely changes the hash.
Each block of the blockchain therefore contains a hash that validates the content of the preceding block... and as this preceding block itself contains the hash of the block that precedes it (which, remember, would change if the slightest character of the preceding block changed, including the hash of the preceding block), each block is inextricably linked to the next. This is why we speak of a chain of blocks.
To change a block that has been issued in the past (and therefore the transactions recorded on it), you also have to change every block that has been issued since.
This wouldn't really be a problem for someone wanting to modify the base for their own benefit, if it were trivial to change the composition of a block. But it isn't: it's extremely difficult to change a single block, to the point where it's impossible in practice. There are several simple reasons for this:
To validate a block, extremely complex mathematical calculations are required. To carry out these calculations, sophisticated computer equipment is needed, which requires a significant initial investment, and uses a considerable amount of electricity, which also has to be paid for.
The people or entities who generate these blocks, the "miners", are paid by receiving bitcoins. The higher the price of bitcoins, the greater the incentive for these miners to invest in quality equipment that enables them to mine efficiently. So, the more successful bitcoin is, the more secure it is.
The level of difficulty of the mathematical operations required to validate a block is directly related to the total power of all the miners on the network: the more miners using powerful computing equipment, the more difficult it is to mine a block, and the greater the investment in equipment and electricity required.
So to change a block in the blockchain :
We would have to redo the calculations for this block, with all the costs it entails, plus the calculations for all the blocks that follow.
At the same time, all the other miners are fighting to validate a block that lies in the future with respect to the block you want to change.
Whereas in case of conflict, the Bitcoin blockchain (via its nodes and miners) automatically accepts the longest chain (the one with all the already validated blocks you are trying to recalculate).
So, in all likelihood, you're going to spend (a lot of) money making calculations that will be rejected by the blockchain, causing you to lose that money.
Money that would have been better invested making legitimate calculations, which would have been accepted by the blockchain, since you could have earned bitcoins that have real value.
What's more, even if by some extraordinary chance you manage to change a block on the blockchain (it's really hypothetical, because no, you won't), you'll only be able to change *your* transactions: you won't be able to access other people's Bitcoins, which are protected by very strong encryption, and by a password known only to Bitcoin owners.
Because when you create a Bitcoin wallet, which can receive and send Bitcoins, you are in effect creating :
An address or set of addresses that can interact with the Bitcoin blockchain
Protected by strong encryption and a password known only to you
This means that your Bitcoins enjoy the same security as encrypted data, as explained above.
Do you now understand how much Bitcoin is :
Decentralized
Because there are thousands of nodes that each have a complete copy of the Bitcoin blockchain, and that anyone, even you, can have a node on your home computer, and that it exists natively on the Internet, so not in any particular place
Uncensorable
Because transactions are only approved or not by mathematical operations, on thousands of different machines spread all over the world, which 1) cannot therefore follow the legislation and regulations of a single country and 2) even if they wanted to, could only do so with a change in Bitcoin's code, which would most likely be rejected by nodes and miners.
Tamper-proof
Because every Bitcoin wallet is protected by encryption that cannot be broken.
And just so you know, any cryptocurrency based on this method, called "proof of work", works in a similar way (other cryptos may be based on different methods).
Proof of Stake : Another method of securing the blockchain
At the time of writing, the best-known crypto-currency with the highest capitalization30 , after Bitcoin, is Ethereum.
Ethereum is based on some principles similar to Bitcoin (a blockchain with unbreakable encryption, decentralized, uncensored) and others different.
Notably, while Ethereum started out with a proof-of-work process like Bitcoin, thus requiring "miners" who had to invest in powerful computer hardware to perform complicated mathematical calculations to secure the blocks on the chain, it then moved to a proof-of-stake process.
What kind of beast is this, you might ask?
Good question! It's a completely different mechanism for securing the blockchain, based on the "staking" of crypto units.
It works like this: to become a validator of blockchain transactions in a node, you need to "stak" a certain number of units of the crypto (in Ether's case, 32) in the node's software.
These stacked cryptos are no longer immediately available to you, like money put in an investment: to use them, you have to withdraw them from the node.
The node in which you've stacked your cryptos (this could be your own node running on your computer, or that of a third-party service) will then validate the network's transactions, following its rules, and in exchange you'll receive a share of the transaction fees generated, in the form of units of the crypto you're storing.
This is the normal way things work for honest people, but what happens if someone launches his own modified node (nodes are based on open source code, so anyone can modify them) and sets up malicious validation rules that allow him, for example, to spend his money twice?
This is where the beauty of proof-of-stake comes into play: other honest nodes will immediately see that there's a problem in the blocks sent by the malicious node, and will follow a set of pre-agreed rules, which will not only remove these transactions from their own blocks, but also delete the cryptos stacked by the pirate node.
The attacker will then end up with 1) a node boycotted by the network, with its blocks no longer accepted, and 2) with all its stacked cryptos gone, representing a considerable loss of earnings for a zero result.
In other words, the motivations for launching such an attack on the network will be few and far between.
It is theoretically possible to carry out a successful attack if an attacker manages to hold 51% of the nodes on the network, but this would mean staking an amount of cryptos representing 51% of the cryptos stacked on the network, which represents an astronomical budget for a very high-risk operation: even if the attack is successful, the 49% of honest nodes will just stop contributing to the flawed network, creating their own network of honest nodes (in a process called "fork"), and the attacker will find himself master of a network... where he'll be all alone.
He'll end up with a pile of worthless cryptos, having spent a fortune for another zero result.
In conclusion
Proof-of-work and proof-of-stake both have their advantages and disadvantages. I won't go into too much detail so as not to weigh down this article, but in summary, proof-of-work consumes more energy but is more decentralized, and proof-of-stake... does exactly the opposite: it consumes less but is (a little) more centralized31 .
Bitcoin was initially heavily criticized for its energy consumption, but several32 studies33 have shown that Bitcoin can be very effective in increasing the profitability of renewable energy sources, by using periods of surplus energy to use electricity that would otherwise be lost to mining, and by using other energy sources that would be lost in vain (such as excess natural gas, which is released during oil extraction and is often flared as it is not economically viable to collect or transport it).
Great, you might say, but how exactly all this does disrupt the States?
In many different ways. We'll dive into it in the next article !
In the meantime, click here to follow Disruptive Horizons on Twitter, and debate these topics with me, or just share the love :)
Note : this article is the 5th in a series on the disruption of nation-states by the Internet.
Here are the first four articles in the series:
Even though buying from centralized marketplaces often requires proof of identity
"Crypto Crime Trends for 2022: Illicit Transaction Activity Reaches All-Time High in Value, All-Time Low in Share of All Cryptocurrency Activity", Chainalysis, 2022
Probably because he had not personally enriched himself in this venture, losing instead a lot of money in the name of his ideal.
"Bullion and Bandits: The Improbable Rise and Fall of E-Gold", Kim Zetter, Wired, 2009
"E-gold founder backs new Bitcoin rival", Stephen Foley, Financial Times, 2013
This right can be delegated, in particular to banks via credit, which requires a license with a number of requirements.
There were exceptions, as in 1154, in Jin dynasty China: the government issued paper bills, known as "Jiaozi", to cope with the shortage of precious metals. Originally, the Jiaozi was backed by copper, silks and grain reserves, meaning that Jiaozi holders could in theory exchange their paper money for these goods.
However, like what happened later during the Yuan dynasty, an over-issue of these paper banknotes led to inflation and a depreciation in the value of the Jiaozi. The Jin dynasty also experienced other economic problems, such as corruption and exploitation, which contributed to its downfall. "Paper Money in Premodern China”.
"The Silver Coinage of Roman Syria Under the Julio-Claudian Emperors" - Butcher and Ponting 2009
“The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, Volume I The Later Roman Empire to the Twelfth Century”, Philip Grierson, 1952
“Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order”, Ray Dalio, 2021
“Exchanging banknotes for gold”, Bank of England, 2015
“Bimetallic Standard”, 2022 and “Gold Standard”, 2022, Investopedia
OECD, M1 for the Euro Area (MANMM101EZQ189S), retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. You'll note that this diagram measures the M1 money supply, which is a different measure from the total monetary base used for the USA just before. However, it does show continuous money creation.
“Fiscal Dominance and the Return of Zero-Interest Bank Reserve Requirements”, Charles W. Calomiris, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2023
One of the few exceptions is the 2008 crisis: two commonly cited reasons are that, 1) although the money supply increased, the velocity of money decreased, as banks, faced with economic uncertainties and stricter regulations, chose to hold on to much of this liquidity rather than lend it out, and 2) with the economy in recession, there was excess capacity and weak demand, putting downward pressure on prices. "We didn't have inflation after 2008. Why are we having it now?", Ross McKitrick, The Financial Post, 2022
When Money Dies, Adam Fergusson, 2010
"On the Measurement of Zimbabwe's Hyperinflation", Hanke S., & Kwok, A. (2009)
Photograph placed in the public domain by the author; subjects placed in the public domain by the government of Zimbabwe.
It's called the Cantillon Effect
A government bond is a debt contracted by a government with its buyer: if you buy one for 100 units for a 10-year term, the government promises to repay the amount shown on the bond in 10 years' time, and pays you (often low) annual interest in exchange for this loan.
You can replace these units with euros, dollars, crowns, rubles and anything else you like!
"A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, F. William Engdahl, 2011
Particularly those of the Austrianschool. See, for example, "The Bitcoin Standard", Saifedean Ammous, and his interview on Lex Friedman's Youtube show, "Bitcoin, Anarchy, and Austrian Economics", 2022.
“The Pity of War”, Niall Ferguson, 2012
"Liberty Reserve Head Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison," Nicole Hong, Wall Street Journal, 2016
With a service like Blockchair for example
Let's say if the computer is under 15 years old.
The total value of the currency (the number of units times the value of each unit)
Debates rage on about the decentralization of the two respective methods, so I just share the general consensus.
“Can Bitcoin Stop Climate Change? Proof of Work, Energy Consumption and Carbon Footprint (SoK)”, Juan Ignacio Ibanez, University College London, 2023
« From Mining to Mitigation: How Bitcoin Can Support Renewable Energy Development and Climate Action”, Apoorv Lal, ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 2023
great content, Olivier !
Afa I can tell: you are not so active on nostr, although having a pubkey aldready.
Welcome !
npub1ps5mp2hrs4w8973cxkn8nfvxquqrn6ems4ntkgtwthwmzefezapqkuylka