Article source: PolkaWorld
I started writing Ethereum code in December when I had only £500 left, which was exactly my rent of £500 a month. At that time, I had already founded two startups, but neither was making progress. I even considered getting a job at a bank. And just then, he gave me £1000 a month to continue working on Ethereum. I wanted to see if this white paper could actually be realized, so I started writing code. A few months later, I became a co-founder of Ethereum.
Gavin Wood, co-founder of Ethereum, creator of Polkadot, and a visionary for Web3. In a three-hour interview last week, he revealed the secrets of the future of blockchain technology. PolkaWorld will release it in several parts, and this article is the first part!
Before we formally begin, let's take a look at some wonderful insights and dialogues!
You created the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and founded Polkadot. In your view, what has been Ethereum's greatest achievement to date? — Ethereum is the project that has created the most millionaires in history.
So, how does a great idea come about? — A good idea is one where you can clearly see the path to realization.
What is the real view on Meme coins? — Pure nonsense (bullshit).
What is Polkadot's greatest achievement? — Achieving a secure sharded blockchain.
So what is the biggest challenge for Polkadot right now? — It's precisely its shard design.
Your childhood doesn't seem to have been easy; can you talk more about it? — I grew up with my single mother, who had a violent husband. I clearly remember that period, filled with a sense of abandonment. This has made me more grateful for having a safe environment now.
People often say 'being too ahead of the curve is equivalent to being wrong', as an inventor, you always foresee trends early. Have you ever experienced misunderstandings or frustrations because of being 'too ahead of the curve'? — Did Howard Marks really say that?
Please continue reading and enjoy the wonderful insights from Gavin!
Starting with small talk
Kevin: Thank you very much for accepting this interview, Gavin. Are you drinking Japanese whiskey right now?
Gavin: Yes, it's Yamazaki 12 years.
Kevin: I heard that you like whiskey and Japanese culture.
Gavin: Yes! Cheers! Kampai!
Kevin: Is Kampai Japanese? I thought it was a Chinese expression.
Gavin: Kampai is Japanese for cheers.
Kevin: Do you speak Japanese?
Gavin: No, but I know a few basic phrases to get by.
Kevin: Do you live in Japan?
Gavin: I have a house in Japan now.
Kevin: Why?
Gavin: Just because I like the culture here. Maybe it's not suitable to live here all year round, but Japanese culture is truly unique, and living here is very interesting.
Kevin: What do you like about Japanese culture?
Gavin: Actually, it's very different from other parts of Asia. The service is really great, and all the details are well considered; this is very obvious. It's completely different from the UK.
Kevin: What do you think of the UK?
Gavin: You know, I grew up here; I'm British. So for me, this is a kind of... not particularly eager to spend all my time here, but I have a house in Cambridge, and I enjoy living here. I also really like certain elements of British culture.
Kevin: For example?
Gavin: For example, British Indian curry, which is fantastic. I love traditional pubs, ales, and cheese. Also, pies are always delicious. Then there's fish and chips, Sunday roasts, which are also very good. Britain is one of the countries that values etiquette, which I appreciate.
Kevin: Yes, but for someone like me, who is not a local Brit, especially someone whose native language is not English, like I come from Switzerland, it can sometimes be hard to understand what the British really mean, especially their sense of humor, right? British humor is really hard to understand and very unique.
Gavin: Yes, I think humor is a wonderful way of communication. You usually find that jokes contain a lot of meaning. In some places, humor has become a part of communication, allowing for slightly indirect expressions or finding common ground that everyone can relate to, rather than stating things directly. It is a very natural way of communicating.
Kevin: Someone told me it's the same in Japan. I heard that people from Osaka (or possibly Kyoto, but definitely not Tokyo) are more laid-back and have a better sense of humor.
Gavin: Yes, it feels very different growing up in Tokyo and then going to those places. In Tokyo, communication is usually more formal, while in Osaka, people are naturally inclined to joke, and humor becomes a part of their communication. When one person is used to communicating with humor and another is not, the difference becomes very apparent.
Kevin: Do you think humor is more related to culture or to a person's level of intelligence? For example, in understanding humor?
Gavin: I believe humor largely relies on shared cognitive points, common perceptions, and a shared understanding of the world. Therefore, it is not necessarily directly linked to intelligence. However, to some extent, intelligence can indeed serve as a tool to create humor, establishing resonance between both parties in a dialogue.
As far as I understand, I've also thought a bit about humor. Humor usually operates on the idea that when you say something or perform an action, the target audience (i.e., the conversational partner) interprets it in two ways, while other onlookers may only interpret it in one way. This hidden interpretation is precisely why humor arises.
What makes it interesting is that the target audience realizes they can interpret the statement in two ways, while knowing that others can only understand it in one way. At the same time, they also know that the speaker is aware of this. Therefore, a special, exclusive understanding forms between the two parties in the dialogue that others cannot participate in. This unique sense of resonance is the essence of humor.
Gavin's childhood
Kevin: Do you enjoy analyzing many things?
Gavin: Of course.
Kevin: Who are you?
Gavin: This is a question from the Borlans asking Derland in Babylon 5, which took an entire episode to answer.
Kevin: So I will start with this question as well.
Gavin: However, I prefer another question: 'What do you want?' This is a question the shadow people ask Derland.
As for 'Who am I?' I don't know; I consider myself somewhat of a free spirit. I try to avoid labeling myself because usually, the way to define 'who you are' is based on your relationships with the surrounding world, with people, and with institutions. I don't like to answer this question with simple answers because if people hear them, they often interpret too much from the answer, which is not what I truly want to convey. Broadly speaking, 'who a person is' cannot be summed up in one or two sentences. This is something that can only be gradually felt through observing a person's words and actions or in interviews like this one.
Kevin: What is your mission?
Gavin: What drives me? This question, I don't know, there are several different factors, and there are some things I want to achieve. For example, happiness, that should be a good goal. Also, fulfillment, being a good father. And a sense of responsibility — a responsibility for some of the things I'm involved with, which is a personal mission. In addition, there are some childhood dreams, things that I know can make me happy while possibly bringing happiness to others, which are more inclined towards art, music, and similar fields.
Kevin: You mentioned childhood dreams. A few months ago, I was talking with Kia Wong from Alliance DAO on a podcast, and they believe two qualities are crucial when looking for star founders in the tomorrow's crypto space. The first is a degree of 'autistic tendencies', which helps people think independently; the second is a form of childhood trauma that gives a drive of 'I want to prove something to the world'. As a very successful founder in the crypto space, do you agree with or possess either or both of these qualities?
Gavin: I'm not qualified to diagnose whether I have 'autistic tendencies'. However, my childhood was certainly not easy. So, I think I might be able to agree on the point of 'childhood trauma'.
Kevin: Would you like to talk a bit more about childhood trauma?
Gavin: I grew up in a single-parent household with only my mother around. This was largely her choice. But she had a violent husband at the time, who was also my father, for a while. I don't remember being physically abused, but I have very profound memories of that period, mainly a sense of abandonment. I don't know if this counts as some form of trauma, nor do I know what specific type of trauma it belongs to. But I believe it has given me a particularly deep appreciation for a 'safe environment'.
Kevin: More and more people are trying to understand their relationship with childhood. I have discussed this topic a lot with people like Jesse Pollack and Mike Novogratz. Many people try to understand the origins of their behavioral patterns through some form of psychotherapy. This is not just to explain 'oh, that's why I do this', but more for self-improvement because we all want to become better. Have you ever done something similar, feeling that childhood helped you in some ways but was perhaps not so good in others, so you hope to learn more about yourself?
Gavin: As you mentioned earlier, I do enjoy thinking and analyzing things. So I haven't neglected to think deeply about the experiences of this stage in my life and how these experiences might affect my current way of thinking or interpersonal interactions. But if you ask me if I've done any specific psychotherapy, hypnosis, etc.? No.
Where do all those great ideas come from?
Kevin: You are a co-founder of Ethereum, created the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and the Solidity programming language, and provided tools for developers to build smart contracts on Ethereum. You also founded Polkadot. How did you come up with these big ideas?
Gavin: I don't know either. I guess the ideas just came up on their own.
Kevin: Interesting. So you don't need to deliberately do anything; they just come to you?
Gavin: Yes.
Kevin: Do you start with goals or plans?
Gavin: No.
Kevin: Or did you wake up one day and suddenly feel, 'This is what I want to do'?
Gavin: You could say that. Although 'must-do' might be a bit of an exaggeration. But indeed, one day while I was pondering some things, like taking a walk or while bathing, or perhaps during casual thinking, I don't know why, the 'pieces' of these thoughts gradually came together.
Essentially, this is not like some people, such as Elon Musk, who might explicitly decide, 'I want to go to Mars', and then start backtracking to figure out what needs to be done: developing batteries, researching rocket science, then developing this and that, setting a clear roadmap, whether written in their mind or on paper, and then tackling them one by one. For me, this approach doesn't quite suit my style.
My approach tends to lean towards incremental innovation. This does not mean that I avoid making any significant changes, but rather, I look for combinations between what I already know, things that can show results, and components that I can imagine exist or actually exist, to see if I can derive a meaningful and useful result that, at least in my view, has not been well realized before.
Kevin: I read a book by the famous surgeon and author of Psycho-Cybernetics, Maxwell Maltz. This book explains some parts of the creative process. He mentions that most creativity actually comes from the subconscious. He said that when you clearly visualize something in your mind, your inner creative success mechanism takes over and does a better job than you could ever do through conscious effort or willpower. So, how many significant ideas, like EVM or any other big ideas, come from your conscious thinking? And how many come from having an idea, setting some goals, and then relaxing to let the subconscious do the work?
Gavin: In my view, an 'idea' does not mean I can casually think of a vision, like 'eliminating world hunger', and then I sleep on it, letting my brain or subconscious do the work. The next morning, something will happen; it won't, right?
Because if the 'idea' you're talking about is a vision or a high-level goal, then it's not really an 'idea' in the true sense. It might be a concept for a movie, but it's not the kind of 'idea' in the engineering sense. Therefore, I don't completely agree that the subconscious can provide significant help in this regard.
I believe ideas must be constrained by practical feasibility.
If you don't have the resources to solve the hunger problem, then focusing on an idea of 'eliminating hunger' doesn't make much sense. Of course, you might say, 'We can take a gradual approach, doing this first and then that.' But that feels more like a top-down method, starting from the end goal and then deducing how to achieve it. I feel this approach is more like Elon Musk's style. He has immense wealth; I don't know if he is worth hundreds of billions or a trillion now, but he can directly say, 'Okay, I'm going to build a city there' or 'I'm going to spend $3 billion to eliminate malaria somewhere.' Then he employs a very programmatic, rational, and unemotional corporate operation to tackle the problem, assessing whether resources are sufficient to achieve the goal. But as I said, this is not an 'idea'; it's just a 'result'.
A true 'idea' is one where you have a path, you have a method to achieve something. Perhaps you don't know the exact details, but you know it is positive, potentially useful, and could help the world. You also believe that no one has thought of such an invention, or that no one has tried to combine existing fundamental elements in this way to create something new.
I believe this is the real meaning when most people talk about 'inventors having an idea'. They refer to the recombination of fundamental elements.
Is being too ahead of the curve equivalent to being wrong? Was Gavin misunderstood?
Kevin: You're saying that by combining these things, you think it will be useful to the world, right? But the problem with this approach is that for inventors, people may not understand you at all for a while, or even a long time, right? I remember Howard Marks saying: 'Being too ahead of the curve is equivalent to being wrong.' As an inventor, you always seem to grasp trends early. In your life, how much frustration have you faced for acting too early or being completely misunderstood by others?
Gavin: Maybe quite a bit, but I'm not sure. Can I really determine if others misunderstand my meaning? Is the difference between them misunderstanding you, ignoring you, or just because they are not smart enough to grasp your concept almost, or even never? I don't know. I suspect there are cases, but to some extent, I agree with that viewpoint (that being too ahead of the curve is equivalent to being wrong). But did Howard Marks really say that? It doesn't sound like his style.
Kevin: I'll have to double-check that later, haha.
Gavin: However, yes, I believe that if you want to build something that can immediately create value for the world, then you must explain it in a way that the world already understands. This is also why most disruptive inventions are usually applied to a very simple, even childish use case at first. A classic example is that the internet was initially used to send emails. For instance, 'Okay, now you can send messages, and these messages no longer take a day to arrive, but can be delivered in minutes — assuming people check their inboxes every few minutes.'
The internet later had a massive impact on the world, and now the role of email actually occupies only a small part of the overall impact of the internet. But at that time, it was necessary because people understood mail, so they could grasp that if the speed of information transmission increased by an order of magnitude, or even two or three orders, that was clearly an improvement.
So, I would agree on this point: you need to explain your ideas in terms that the market or your target audience can understand.
Of course, the problem is that sometimes building something is much easier than figuring out its specific use.
Kevin: Isn't this the problem for most entrepreneurs? They usually start by making a product and then look for target users, rather than the other way around. They should ask themselves: 'Am I solving problems for people?' But you could also argue that those who provide solutions to existing problems are actually solving smaller problems than completely new inventions.
Gavin: Yes, usually that's the case. And many times, they are limiting themselves. They restrict their wisdom and thinking space because they have already drawn a clear boundary. For example, they only focus on making a car go faster or consume less fuel. Perhaps they could think of making the car fly, but that doesn't matter because their focus is solely on reducing fuel consumption.
So I agree that if you have already predetermined the outcome before you truly begin to conceive how to achieve your goals, you may only be able to solve smaller problems.
If you take a broader perspective, being a bit more 'hands-off' regarding the specific results you want to achieve, like just trying to find ways to make things more free, more efficient, and faster, then you might find some more revolutionary and substantial solutions faster.
Kevin: When do you feel you have been most misunderstood? You mentioned that this might have happened many times, right?
Gavin: Well, I think it's quite common when doing JAM. This is the new protocol I am currently working on. But I think it's normal because it is indeed a complex protocol, and its operational method is very different from previous ones. Understanding its differences and why it is better is not always easy. Much of it is because people may not truly understand the limitations of existing methods. This is a significant issue in cutting-edge technology development.
Even practitioners do not always clearly recognize the current state of technology, or that the current edge of technology is not optimal. Only when you deeply analyze and truly understand existing problems can you better understand why a certain solution might be effective.
A profound understanding of knowledge is the key to driving significant breakthroughs.
Kevin: How did you start? Because according to the classic approach, you would have a problem and then go about solving it. But if your idea is more abstract, how did you get started?
Gavin: If you start from 'I have this problem, I want to find a solution', I believe this applies to smaller incremental issues.
For larger problems, you might need to be very lucky to stumble upon a solution. Or you could be like Bill Gates and directly say, 'I will invest my considerable wealth into this problem.' But assuming you are neither extremely lucky nor extraordinarily wealthy, you might choose to start addressing smaller problems. Because there are far more small problems than big ones, and they are more segmented and detailed, which means there are relatively fewer people focused on them. This implies that these problems might be easier to solve and easier for you to discover and leverage.
So I think this 'top-down, define the outcome first' approach is more suited for small problems rather than big ones, unless you have extremely abundant resources or a huge stroke of luck.
That's why I say you should start from the current situation and analyze the existing 'components'.
When I say 'components', I refer to very abstract concepts, not just things that can be directly used in a literal sense, such as Rust programming language, an Android phone, or a CPU. It also includes the following:
• Various fields of mathematics
• Different branches of engineering
• Various human perceptions of the world
• Products and services already on the market
• Deployed projects
• Open-source software
All of these can be seen as 'components' that you can leverage when constructing something. By combining these components, along with some novelty or creativity, useful things can be constructed that may be used to solve one or more problems. I believe this is the essence of creativity.
You can easily achieve this at a lower level. For example, I could write a new program that performs a type of matching and create a trading bot with this program, which could soon achieve some success. This is solving a relatively small problem.
Academic research typically operates at a higher level of abstraction. Scholars still try to solve problems by recombining ideas, adding a bit of intellectual creativity and innovation, but the problems they are attempting to solve tend to be 'larger' ones (even though these problems are not always widely understood and may not seem very important). These issues might not be the big concerns that many people pay attention to or might not be some very practical problems that need solving. However, even so, they are still creating more useful human knowledge, which in itself is a meaningful endeavor.
There are many classic examples, such as some theoretical research from the early 20th century that led to laser theory, which ultimately was used to manufacture CDs. If it weren't for this theoretical research, CDs would not have been invented. But at the time these studies were completed, no one knew what they would be useful for. For a long time, even decades, they were almost 'useless'. But when they were finally applied, they triggered a revolution in audio technology.
I'm not saying you should lock yourself in an ivory tower and only do highly abstract, seemingly purely theoretical things. What I want to express is that there is actually a spectrum between immediately practical things and seemingly purely theoretical things. And I myself probably fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.
I attempt to propose some new engineering understandings that do not simply say 'deploying will increase transaction volume by 10% tomorrow'. Instead, I hope that when correctly applied, it might become part of the next generation system, bringing a 1000% or even 1 million percent increase in transaction volume.
Of course, you can't be completely certain of this because you're not solely pursuing a specific outcome. Instead, you're pursuing a profound understanding of knowledge. I believe that a better understanding of knowledge in itself can lead to great results, and not just one great result, but potentially multiple significant outcomes.
