I have been a researcher and builder in web3 for many years and have also been an early adopter of wearables. I also firmly believe that the killer app for web3 will be focused on the QS movement, combining elements of AI, Web3 and QS tools.
So, I have been trying to figure out if it makes sense to put QS data on a blockchain, all with goals of achieving hyper personalization and redistributing some of the value chain.
IMO, we should put QS data on chain. Here are a few key points:
-
Data Ownership - Not your keys, not your coins is a phrase often said by the web3 community. But, this phrase can also extend to - “Not your keys, not your data” … In web2, we don’t actually own our data, even though we might have access to it and have legal disclaimers that prevent the misuse of our data. So, if we truly care to own and control our data, the ownership features of blockchains make the most sense to me.
-
Data exchange - there needs to be a better way to exchange our data, with greater transparency and value exchange. We currently lack data exchange standards and blockchains seem to offer a better solution to have unified standards.
-
Crowd sourcing and governing large models - there is a web3 project called Numerai that is doing this for finance. I assume a similar model could also be useful to do this for QS data. This of course will require new thinking, but nonetheless blockchain can offer greater governance over models and transparency into how models are using our data.
Understanding the biggest barriers in putting QS data on chain are privacy, cost of storage and speed, I do think these issues will be solved and in fact are being solved.
While these are just some ideas, I would love to hear from the community and have a meaningful conversation. Does blockchain make sense to put QS data on chain?
1 Like
Very much makes sense!
Obviously requires domain adaptation, but there are several solutions I’m looking at that are making interesting progress in applying web3 principles to health data, mainly health data decentralization (democratization 
.
You mentioned that you are a researcher and builder in web3 , happy to run by you an idea I’m thinking of for mental health currently (but not exclusively)…
LMK? bh.limor@gmail.com
Cheers
Sorry but I disagree. We here all know the value and sense of QS and collecting our personal data but as we are very much a niche group I fail to see that what we do will generate the massive exposure to create a Web 3 killer app.
There are also data protection/privacy implications for putting our QS data online. The European Union (and for the moment the UK) has strict rules about personal data being shared by companies and organisation. I for one have instructed the UK’s National Health Service not to share my medical records with either Google or, the NHS’s current favourite, Palantir. Especially so since UK central and local government departments are useless at maintaining the privacy of citizens. Some recent UK examples https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/26/24000-hospital-letters-lost-due-to-nhs-computer-glitch, Electoral Commission apologises for security breach involving UK voters’ data | Electoral Commission | The Guardian (far exceeds the issue of voter rigging vua Cambridge Analytica), Data breaches putting domestic abuse victims’ lives at risk, says UK watchdog | Domestic violence | The Guardian. but there are a myriad of such privacy breaches over decades and it feels like there is at least one new one every week.
As to the usefulness/practicality of blockchaining QS data I have no idea. It is in my mind associated with crypto currencies and that is a domain I have no intention of entering. To me it is undesirable.
Just my 2BTC.
1 Like
hi, thanks for your feedback. I will email you.
Valid points, thank you for your feedback. Privacy and security of our personal data and data in general is undoubtedly the biggest concern. So is ensuring compliance in specific jurisdictions.
The unfortunate reality, is that blockchain, web3 and crypto have become synonymous and have cultivated a rather toxic and scammy culture. However, what I have grown to understand is the nature of what the tech can do, if we have the right design. More importantly, if you look at just the bitcoin blockchain, it is arguably the most secure database we have in existence. So much so that whoever hacks it will take down the entirety of web3. To my knowledge the only way to do this is through quantum computing.
You mention that governments are useless at maintaining the privacy of citizens. I agree. This is 1 example of why we should consider using the security that blockchains offer. Some might say that blockchains are not private and that is mostly true, however there is a massive push to add not only security but also privacy into the blockchain stack, using things like zero knowledge proofs and private compute. You can reference George Church’s genomic company, Nebula Genomics, which leverages the Oasis Network, a privacy focused blockchain platform https://nebula.org/oasis-labs-partnership/. Also reference Starkware, another privacy focused blockchain platform https://starkware.co/. And anyone can design a blockchain to comply with national / regional / organizational rules - reference subnets Avalanche Subnets: Use dApps Like Never Before.
Lastly regarding cryptocurrencies, most of these tokens are nonsense and their platforms are useless. However, some of them have value and serve as a tool to pay for storage and process transactions. The price of the tokens does not matter, however, if leveraging the security and privacy of select networks is to be a reality, then select tokens will be needed to use the platforms.
It helps to detach from crypto and focus on the outcomes of the tech. Kevin Kelly had 2 really good talks on both subject matters.
Thanks again for your feedback.
