Connect with us

Berkeley Blockchain Xcelerator Director on What DLT Startups Need to Succeed

Berkeley Blockchain Xcelerator Director on What DLT Startups Need to Succeed

Published

on

Cointelegraph spoke to the UC Berkeley Blockchain Xcelerator’s director to find out what the blockchain incubator offers aspiring DLT startups.

The Berkeley Blockchain Xcelerator — an incubator for early stage distributed ledger technology startups at the University of California, Berkeley — recently launched its spring cohort, which includes startups seeking to fight COVID-19, launch a cannabis-themed massively multiplayer online game and create a reverse auction platform for loans.

Cointelegraph spoke to Jocelyn Weber, the director of the Xcelerator, to find out more about the resources the program offers to startups, success stories from previous cohorts and advice for startups looking to launch in the crypto space.

Cointelegraph: Could you give an overview of the engagement and resources available to startups participating in the Xcelerator?

Jocelyn Weber: Our mission at Berkeley is to provide education and opportunity creation for our students and for the teams that join us and the Xcelerator. 

So, we're kind of a platform that serves two sides: the student community, which ranges from undergraduate to Ph.D. and faculty level; and then on the other side of the platform are the startups, which can come to us to find blockchain talent funding, entrepreneurial guidance partners and even users for their products.

On campus, we have blockchain researchers, the Blockchain at Berkeley student group and a variety of blockchain courses. We have workshops on campus from the Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing, which is led by Shafi Goldwasser, who is the co-inventor of zero-knowledge proofs.

We have an ecosystem calendar now on the Xcelerator website that shows you kind of all the activity that's taking place on a month-to-month basis. And a lot of that activity is open to the community and anyone can join.

We invite our startups to engage in these activities with us on our campus, and we mix in people from our network, which includes venture firms and corporates such as Samsung, Next and Oracle. 

CT: Can you give some more examples of the venture capital firms and crypto companies that are in UC Berkeley’s network?

JW: We've had Harmony, Near, Cosmos, Affinity and Polkadot all speak on campus over the last year and a half. We also involve exchanges, regulatory and legal advisors, and a host of mentors. We also have a Blockchain at Berkeley student fellowship program that pairs some of our top blockchain Berkeley students with each Xcelerator team.

“To stimulate the interaction among all these stakeholders, we invite them to our open monthly meetups, to speak on panels or in speaker sessions and, when appropriate, to mentor directly with the teams or hold office hours.”

Our accelerator also draws from our Berkeley Entrepreneurs Association network to teach a range of topics, including customer discovery, marketing for startups, design thinking and how to best interact with VCs in Silicon Valley. We've also had close to eight VC panels or VC speaking sessions. Those have included Blockchain Capital, Monday Capital, Future Perfect Ventures, Coinbase Ventures, Robinhood Crypto and Dekrypt Capital.

CT: When assessing applications from startups, what are some of the things you look for when identifying teams/projects that are of high quality or have strong potential?

JW: We look a lot at “founder, problem, fit”: do the founders really have the leadership in their team with the experience, the blockchain background and the network to win in their market or use case?

We also want to see that it's not technology for technology's sake, that it really is a viable business. And we like to see some customer market validation data. Although it's still early in the blockchain space, many of our teams have had a chance to go out and get early adopter customers. So we like to see that in the teams that we select.

We also receive recommendations from some of the projects that we are in touch with. Near, Ripple, Stellar, Parity and Polkadot have all recommended projects to us in the past, which is helpful because they certainly know in their own ecosystems who is doing good work.

CT: What are some of the biggest challenges that the Xcelerator has found blockchain startups frequently encounter?

JW: Market timing for broader adoption is a challenge that the entire blockchain industry is facing. Certainly, our teams see that. They have these early adopters and early traction, and what we're waiting for is the broader market timing. 

Also, in some cases, the customers' understanding of the technology. Sometimes you have blockchain being applied to a legacy industry that's not familiar with the technology, and there is a little bit of education that needs to take place by the startup for these legacy industries so that they can understand the benefits of blockchain. So, you see a lot of customer education also being done by our startups.

CT: Can you share some success stories from previous cohorts?

JW: Leaf Global Fintech, a global virtual bank that helps refugees and migrants safely store and transport money across borders, was in our fall batch. They have launched and gained traction. They've also received a $225,000 phase one non-dilutive grant from the National Science Foundation in the United States. We were excited that they were able to raise that non-dilutive support.

PlayTable was in our first batch, and they raised over $3 million with a new token issuance that included investors like VeChain and Block Crafters. We also had Bitmark from our first batch raise $3 million dollars.

CT: Have many former cohort members been able to raise capital after participating in the Xcelerator?

JW: From our first batch, we had 12 teams in total. Three were student-led teams that primarily went on with education. We had one team that had done an initial coin offering and didn't need additional funding, and eight went on to seek additional capital. Five of the eight have been successful in raising new capital. I hope that two more will raise in the next few months, as they were pretty far along in the fundraising process just before COVID-19 affected the U.S. and Europe.

From the second batch, there was RIPchain, or rest-in-peace chain. They are putting wills and trusts on the blockchain. A very young team of 17-year-old twins doing some great work. I expect we'll hear more from them. 

Many of our other teams from that fall batch are still working on fundraising, as we ended in mid-December. With COVID-19, we will see some slowing of that progress, but I expect that a good number of them will go on to raise over the next 10 months. 

Finally, another key result that we've noticed is the hiring activity taking place. A new number of our UC Berkeley students at all levels are being hired by our startups, as well as companies that have sponsored events or spoken on panels. We're really thrilled to see this opportunity creation through our network.

CT: What lessons has the Xcelerator learned since the first cohort, and what adjustments have been made to the program?

JW: It's been just over a year, but we have made some adjustments. We were trying to follow semester boundaries, and that put us with a demo day in mid-December at the end of last year, which we learned was not an optimal time for venture capital engagement. So, we are changing that, and that's why we're starting in April and ending around October for our spring batch.

“We've also learned that involving the blockchain VC community on panels and speaking sessions on campus is really helpful to understand their perspectives, educate ourselves when we're selecting teams, and also to educate our teams on where VCs are most interested and what their views are.”

So, it's helpful to have that dialogue between the VC community, especially the blockchain VC community, and our teams.

CT: Do you have any predictions for the blockchain sector in the coming years?

JW: We think security in the decentralized finance space needs to be addressed for broader adoption. We also saw a very high volume of gaming from ghost applications in the current batch of applications.

“We are excited about the gaming space. We have four teams in the current batch working on gaming-related solutions or nonfungible tokens, and we think this is a great opportunity for broader consumer adoption of crypto and NFTs.”

And finally, like most of the industry today, we see that activity will move toward application-specific blockchains with architectures that are best suited for particular use cases. And then 12 to 18 months after many of these new layer one chains launch their mainnet, it will be very interesting to see what works well.

CT: What advice would you give to early startups or entrepreneurs who are thinking about building in the blockchain and crypto industries?

JW: I'd give the typical startup or new venture considerations: Ensure you have a scalable business model through the customer discovery process before you do extensive product development. Understand your market and the dynamics in that market extremely well. 

And build a network of potential investors, advisors, mentors and partners as early as possible in the process. We feel the network that teams establish is really key to their success. 

“If you're a decentralized application, stay layer-one agnostic or flexible as long as you can, as some layer ones may end up being more successful or more appropriate for your solution in the long run.”

This interview was shortened and slightly edited for clarity.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

The Coming Of The Police State In America

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now…

Published

on

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now patrolling the New York City subway system in an attempt to do something about the explosion of crime. As part of this, there are bag checks and new surveillance of all passengers. No legislation, no debate, just an edict from the mayor.

Many citizens who rely on this system for transportation might welcome this. It’s a city of strict gun control, and no one knows for sure if they have the right to defend themselves. Merchants have been harassed and even arrested for trying to stop looting and pillaging in their own shops.

The message has been sent: Only the police can do this job. Whether they do it or not is another matter.

Things on the subway system have gotten crazy. If you know it well, you can manage to travel safely, but visitors to the city who take the wrong train at the wrong time are taking grave risks.

In actual fact, it’s guaranteed that this will only end in confiscating knives and other things that people carry in order to protect themselves while leaving the actual criminals even more free to prey on citizens.

The law-abiding will suffer and the criminals will grow more numerous. It will not end well.

When you step back from the details, what we have is the dawning of a genuine police state in the United States. It only starts in New York City. Where is the Guard going to be deployed next? Anywhere is possible.

If the crime is bad enough, citizens will welcome it. It must have been this way in most times and places that when the police state arrives, the people cheer.

We will all have our own stories of how this came to be. Some might begin with the passage of the Patriot Act and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in 2001. Some will focus on gun control and the taking away of citizens’ rights to defend themselves.

My own version of events is closer in time. It began four years ago this month with lockdowns. That’s what shattered the capacity of civil society to function in the United States. Everything that has happened since follows like one domino tumbling after another.

It goes like this:

1) lockdown,

2) loss of moral compass and spreading of loneliness and nihilism,

3) rioting resulting from citizen frustration, 4) police absent because of ideological hectoring,

5) a rise in uncontrolled immigration/refugees,

6) an epidemic of ill health from substance abuse and otherwise,

7) businesses flee the city

8) cities fall into decay, and that results in

9) more surveillance and police state.

The 10th stage is the sacking of liberty and civilization itself.

It doesn’t fall out this way at every point in history, but this seems like a solid outline of what happened in this case. Four years is a very short period of time to see all of this unfold. But it is a fact that New York City was more-or-less civilized only four years ago. No one could have predicted that it would come to this so quickly.

But once the lockdowns happened, all bets were off. Here we had a policy that most directly trampled on all freedoms that we had taken for granted. Schools, businesses, and churches were slammed shut, with various levels of enforcement. The entire workforce was divided between essential and nonessential, and there was widespread confusion about who precisely was in charge of designating and enforcing this.

It felt like martial law at the time, as if all normal civilian law had been displaced by something else. That something had to do with public health, but there was clearly more going on, because suddenly our social media posts were censored and we were being asked to do things that made no sense, such as mask up for a virus that evaded mask protection and walk in only one direction in grocery aisles.

Vast amounts of the white-collar workforce stayed home—and their kids, too—until it became too much to bear. The city became a ghost town. Most U.S. cities were the same.

As the months of disaster rolled on, the captives were let out of their houses for the summer in order to protest racism but no other reason. As a way of excusing this, the same public health authorities said that racism was a virus as bad as COVID-19, so therefore it was permitted.

The protests had turned to riots in many cities, and the police were being defunded and discouraged to do anything about the problem. Citizens watched in horror as downtowns burned and drug-crazed freaks took over whole sections of cities. It was like every standard of decency had been zapped out of an entire swath of the population.

Meanwhile, large checks were arriving in people’s bank accounts, defying every normal economic expectation. How could people not be working and get their bank accounts more flush with cash than ever? There was a new law that didn’t even require that people pay rent. How weird was that? Even student loans didn’t need to be paid.

By the fall, recess from lockdown was over and everyone was told to go home again. But this time they had a job to do: They were supposed to vote. Not at the polling places, because going there would only spread germs, or so the media said. When the voting results finally came in, it was the absentee ballots that swung the election in favor of the opposition party that actually wanted more lockdowns and eventually pushed vaccine mandates on the whole population.

The new party in control took note of the large population movements out of cities and states that they controlled. This would have a large effect on voting patterns in the future. But they had a plan. They would open the borders to millions of people in the guise of caring for refugees. These new warm bodies would become voters in time and certainly count on the census when it came time to reapportion political power.

Meanwhile, the native population had begun to swim in ill health from substance abuse, widespread depression, and demoralization, plus vaccine injury. This increased dependency on the very institutions that had caused the problem in the first place: the medical/scientific establishment.

The rise of crime drove the small businesses out of the city. They had barely survived the lockdowns, but they certainly could not survive the crime epidemic. This undermined the tax base of the city and allowed the criminals to take further control.

The same cities became sanctuaries for the waves of migrants sacking the country, and partisan mayors actually used tax dollars to house these invaders in high-end hotels in the name of having compassion for the stranger. Citizens were pushed out to make way for rampaging migrant hordes, as incredible as this seems.

But with that, of course, crime rose ever further, inciting citizen anger and providing a pretext to bring in the police state in the form of the National Guard, now tasked with cracking down on crime in the transportation system.

What’s the next step? It’s probably already here: mass surveillance and censorship, plus ever-expanding police power. This will be accompanied by further population movements, as those with the means to do so flee the city and even the country and leave it for everyone else to suffer.

As I tell the story, all of this seems inevitable. It is not. It could have been stopped at any point. A wise and prudent political leadership could have admitted the error from the beginning and called on the country to rediscover freedom, decency, and the difference between right and wrong. But ego and pride stopped that from happening, and we are left with the consequences.

The government grows ever bigger and civil society ever less capable of managing itself in large urban centers. Disaster is unfolding in real time, mitigated only by a rising stock market and a financial system that has yet to fall apart completely.

Are we at the middle stages of total collapse, or at the point where the population and people in leadership positions wise up and decide to put an end to the downward slide? It’s hard to know. But this much we do know: There is a growing pocket of resistance out there that is fed up and refuses to sit by and watch this great country be sacked and taken over by everything it was set up to prevent.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate…

Published

on

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate iron levels in their blood due to a COVID-19 infection could be at greater risk of long COVID.

(Shutterstock)

A new study indicates that problems with iron levels in the bloodstream likely trigger chronic inflammation and other conditions associated with the post-COVID phenomenon. The findings, published on March 1 in Nature Immunology, could offer new ways to treat or prevent the condition.

Long COVID Patients Have Low Iron Levels

Researchers at the University of Cambridge pinpointed low iron as a potential link to long-COVID symptoms thanks to a study they initiated shortly after the start of the pandemic. They recruited people who tested positive for the virus to provide blood samples for analysis over a year, which allowed the researchers to look for post-infection changes in the blood. The researchers looked at 214 samples and found that 45 percent of patients reported symptoms of long COVID that lasted between three and 10 months.

In analyzing the blood samples, the research team noticed that people experiencing long COVID had low iron levels, contributing to anemia and low red blood cell production, just two weeks after they were diagnosed with COVID-19. This was true for patients regardless of age, sex, or the initial severity of their infection.

According to one of the study co-authors, the removal of iron from the bloodstream is a natural process and defense mechanism of the body.

But it can jeopardize a person’s recovery.

When the body has an infection, it responds by removing iron from the bloodstream. This protects us from potentially lethal bacteria that capture the iron in the bloodstream and grow rapidly. It’s an evolutionary response that redistributes iron in the body, and the blood plasma becomes an iron desert,” University of Oxford professor Hal Drakesmith said in a press release. “However, if this goes on for a long time, there is less iron for red blood cells, so oxygen is transported less efficiently affecting metabolism and energy production, and for white blood cells, which need iron to work properly. The protective mechanism ends up becoming a problem.”

The research team believes that consistently low iron levels could explain why individuals with long COVID continue to experience fatigue and difficulty exercising. As such, the researchers suggested iron supplementation to help regulate and prevent the often debilitating symptoms associated with long COVID.

It isn’t necessarily the case that individuals don’t have enough iron in their body, it’s just that it’s trapped in the wrong place,” Aimee Hanson, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cambridge who worked on the study, said in the press release. “What we need is a way to remobilize the iron and pull it back into the bloodstream, where it becomes more useful to the red blood cells.”

The research team pointed out that iron supplementation isn’t always straightforward. Achieving the right level of iron varies from person to person. Too much iron can cause stomach issues, ranging from constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain to gastritis and gastric lesions.

1 in 5 Still Affected by Long COVID

COVID-19 has affected nearly 40 percent of Americans, with one in five of those still suffering from symptoms of long COVID, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Long COVID is marked by health issues that continue at least four weeks after an individual was initially diagnosed with COVID-19. Symptoms can last for days, weeks, months, or years and may include fatigue, cough or chest pain, headache, brain fog, depression or anxiety, digestive issues, and joint or muscle pain.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 12:50

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending