Exclusive Interview with Polkadot Creator Gavin Wood: What Misunderstandings and Setbacks Did He Experience Due to Being Ahead of His Time?

Author: PolkaWorld

"I started writing Ethereum code in December when I had only £500 left, and my rent was exactly £500 a month. At that time, I had already founded two startups, but neither had made any progress. I even considered getting a job at a bank. And then, at that moment, he gave me £1,000 a month to continue working on Ethereum. I wanted to see if this white paper could really come to fruition, 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 mysteries of the future of blockchain technology. PolkaWorld will release this in several parts, and this is the first part!

Before we officially begin, let's take a look at some exciting viewpoints and dialogues!

You created the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and founded Polkadot. In your opinion, what is Ethereum's greatest achievement so far? ------ 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 your true opinion on meme coins? ------ Pure nonsense (bullshit).

What is Polkadot's greatest achievement? ------ Achieving secure sharded blockchains.

So what is Polkadot's biggest challenge right now? ------ Its sharding design.

Your childhood doesn't seem to have been easy; can you talk more about it? ------ I grew up with my single mother, and her husband was very violent. I clearly remember that period, filled with feelings of abandonment. This made me more grateful for the safe environment I have now.

People often say "being too ahead of your time is equivalent to being wrong." As an inventor, you always foresee trends early. Have you ever experienced misunderstandings or setbacks because you were "too ahead"? ------ Did Howard Marks really say that?

Please continue reading and enjoy the wonderful content brought by Gavin!

Starting with Small Talk

Kevin: Thank you very much for accepting this interview, Gavin. Are you drinking Japanese whiskey now?

Gavin: Yes, Yamazaki 12 years.

Kevin: I heard 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. It may not be suitable to live here all year round, but Japanese culture is really unique, and living here is very interesting.

Kevin: What do you like about Japanese culture?

Gavin: It is actually very different from other parts of Asia. The service is really great, and every detail is well thought out, which is very obvious. It's completely different from the UK.

Kevin: How do you view the UK then?

Gavin: You know, I grew up here; I am British. So for me, it's 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: Like what?

Gavin: For example, British Indian curry, which is fantastic. I love traditional pubs, ale, and cheese. Also, pies are always delicious. And fish and chips, Sunday roasts, are also very good. The UK is one of the countries that values etiquette the most in the world, which I appreciate.

Kevin: Yes, but for someone like me, if you're not a local Brit, especially if English is not your first language, 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 great way of communication. You often find that jokes contain a lot of meaning. In some places, humor has become part of communication, where you can express meaning slightly indirectly or find some common ground that everyone can relate to, rather than stating things bluntly. It's a very natural way of communicating.

Kevin: Someone told me that Japan is like this too. I heard that people from Osaka (or maybe Kyoto, but definitely not Tokyo) are more laid-back and have a better sense of humor.

Gavin: Yes, it's very different from the feeling of growing up in Tokyo and then going to those places. In Tokyo, the communication style is usually more formal, while in Osaka, people naturally enjoy joking, and humor becomes part of their communication. And 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 intelligence? For example, understanding humor?

Gavin: I think humor largely relies on shared cognitive points, shared perceptions, and a common understanding of the world. Therefore, it is not necessarily directly linked to intelligence. But to some extent, intelligence can indeed serve as a tool to create humor and establish resonance between the two parties in a conversation.

As I understand it, I've thought a bit about humor. Humor usually hinges on the idea that when you say something or perform an action, the target audience (the interlocutor) interprets it in two ways, while other observers may only interpret it in one way. This hidden interpretation is what generates the sense of humor.

What makes it interesting is that the target audience realizes they can interpret the statement in two ways and knows that others can only understand it in one way. At the same time, they also know that the speaker is aware of this. Thus, a special, exclusive understanding forms between the two parties in the conversation, which others cannot participate in. This unique sense of resonance is the essence of humor.

Gavin's Childhood

Kevin: Do you like analyzing many things?

Gavin: Of course.

Kevin: Who are you?

Gavin: That's the question the Vorlons ask Delenn in "Babylon 5," and that episode spends an entire episode answering it.

Kevin: So I'll start with that question too.

Gavin: However, I prefer another question: "What do you want?" That's the question the Shadows ask Delenn.

As for "Who am I?" I don't know; I consider myself a bit 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, people, and institutions. I don't like to answer this question with simple answers because if people hear it, they often over-interpret it, which is not what I really want to express. Broadly speaking, "who a person is" cannot be summarized in one or two sentences. It is something that can only be gradually felt through observing a person's words and actions, or in interviews like this.

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, right? Like satisfaction, being a good father. And a sense of responsibility—responsibility for some of the things I am involved in, which is a personal sense of mission. Besides that, there are some childhood dreams, things I know can make me happy and might also make others happy, which lean more towards the fields of art and music.

Kevin: You mentioned childhood dreams. A few months ago, I was discussing this topic with Kia Wong from Alliance DAO on a podcast. They believe that two traits are crucial when looking for star founders in the future crypto space. First, a certain degree of "autistic tendencies," which helps people think independently; second, a childhood trauma that drives a person to have a motivation of "I need to prove something to the world." As a very successful founder in the crypto space, do you identify with either of these traits or both?

Gavin: I don't have the qualifications to diagnose whether I have 'autistic tendencies.' However, my childhood was indeed not easy. So, I think I might identify with the 'childhood trauma' aspect.

Kevin: Would you like to talk a bit more about childhood trauma?

Gavin: I grew up in a single-parent family, with only my mother around. This was largely her choice. But she had a violent husband at the time, who was also my father, and that lasted for a while. I don't remember being physically abused, but I have very deep memories of that period, mainly a sense of abandonment. I don't know if this can be considered a kind of trauma, nor am I sure what type of trauma it specifically belongs to. But I think 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've discussed this topic with people like Jesse Pollack and Mike Novogratz. Many people go through some form of psychotherapy to understand the origins of their behavioral patterns. This is not just to explain, "Oh, that's why I do this," but more for self-improvement, as we all want to become better. Have you done anything similar, like feeling that childhood helped you in some ways but may not have been good in others, so you hope to learn more about yourself?

Gavin: As you mentioned earlier, I am indeed someone who likes to think and analyze things. So I haven't avoided deeply reflecting on my life experiences at this stage and how those experiences might influence my current way of thinking or interpersonal interactions. But if you ask me whether I've done specific psychotherapy, hypnosis, or anything like that? No.

Where Do All Great Ideas Come From?

Kevin: You are a co-founder of Ethereum, created the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and the Solidity programming language, providing 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. I think the ideas just came out 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 a goal or a plan?

Gavin: No.

Kevin: Or do you wake up one day and suddenly think, "This is what I want to do"?

Gavin: You could say that. Although saying "I must do this" might be a bit of an exaggeration. But indeed, there was a day when I was thinking about some things, like going for a walk or taking a shower, or maybe just thinking casually, and for some reason, the "puzzle" of these ideas gradually came together.

Essentially, this is not like some people, like Elon Musk, who might explicitly decide, "I want to go to Mars," and then start working backward 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 implementing them one by one. For me, that approach doesn't quite fit my style.

My approach leans more towards incremental innovation. This doesn't mean I avoid making any significant changes, but rather that I look for combinations of things based on what I already know, what I can see working, and what I can imagine exists or actually exists, to see if I can derive a result that looks meaningful and useful. And this result, at least in my view, has not been well realized before.

Kevin: I read a book by a famous surgeon and author of "Psycho-Cybernetics," Maxwell Maltz. This book, "Psycho-Cybernetics," actually explains some parts of the creative process. He mentioned that most creativity actually comes from the subconscious. He said that when you clearly see something in your mind, your inner creative success mechanism takes over and does a better job than you could through conscious effort or willpower. So, for major ideas like the EVM or any other big ideas, how much comes from your conscious thinking? And how much comes from having an idea, setting some goals, and then relaxing, allowing your subconscious to do the work?

Gavin: In my view, an "idea" is not something where I can just casually think of a vision, like "eliminate world hunger," and then I sleep on it, letting my brain or subconscious do the work. The next morning, something will happen—no, right?

Because if the "idea" you're talking about is a vision or a high-level goal, then it doesn't really qualify as a true "idea" in the engineering sense. It might be a creative idea for a movie, but it's not that kind of "idea" in an engineering context. Therefore, I don't entirely agree that the subconscious can provide much help in this regard.

I believe that 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 an incremental approach, doing this first, then that." But that feels more like a top-down approach, starting from the end goal and then deducing how to achieve it. I think this approach is more like Elon Musk's style. He has immense wealth; I don't know if he's worth hundreds of billions or thousands of billions now, but he can say, "Okay, I'm going to build a city there," or "I'm going to spend $3 billion to eradicate malaria somewhere." Then he addresses the problem in a very programmatic, rational, and unemotional corporate operation manner, assessing whether the 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, a way to realize something. Maybe you don't know the exact details, but you know it's positive, potentially useful, and might help the world. You also believe that no one has thought of such an invention, or that no one has tried to combine existing foundational elements in this way to create something new.

I think this is the true meaning of what most people refer to when they talk about "an inventor having an idea." They are referring to a recombination of basic elements.

Is Being Too Ahead of Your Time Equivalent to Being Wrong? Has Gavin Been Misunderstood?

Kevin: You mean combining these things and thinking it will be useful to the world, right? But the problem with this is that for someone like an inventor, people may not understand you at all for a while, or even for a long time, right? I remember Howard Marks saying, "Being too ahead of your time is equivalent to being wrong." As an inventor, you always grasp trends early. In life, how many setbacks have you faced because you acted too early or were completely misunderstood by others?

Gavin: Probably quite a few, but I'm not sure. Can I really determine whether others misunderstood my meaning? Is there a clear distinction between them misunderstanding you, ignoring you, or simply being too unintelligent to understand your concept, possibly forever? I don't know. I suspect there are cases, but to some extent, I agree with that viewpoint (that being too ahead of your time is equivalent to being wrong). But did Howard Marks really say that? It doesn't sound like his style.

Kevin: I'll have to confirm that later, haha.

Gavin: But yes, I think if you want to build something that can immediately create value for the world, you must explain it in a way that the world already understands. This is also why most disruptive inventions are often initially used for a very simple, even childish use case. A classic example is that the internet was initially used to send emails. For instance, "Okay, now you can send messages that no longer take a day to arrive but can be delivered in minutes—assuming people check their inbox every few minutes."

The internet later had a huge impact on the world, and today, the role of email actually accounts for only a small part of the overall impact of the internet. But it was necessary at the time because people understood mail, so they could comprehend that if the speed of information delivery increased by an order of magnitude, or even two or three orders of magnitude, 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 that the problem for most entrepreneurs? They usually build a product and then look for target users, rather than the other way around. They should ask themselves, "Am I solving a problem for people?" But you could also argue that those who provide solutions to existing problems are actually solving a smaller problem than a completely new invention.

Gavin: Yes, that's usually the case. And many times, they are limiting themselves. They restrict their wisdom and thinking space because they have already defined a clear scope. For example, they focus only on making a car go faster or consume less fuel. Maybe 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 predetermined the outcome before you really start to conceive how to achieve your goal, you may only be able to solve smaller problems.

If your perspective is broader, and you are a bit more "hands-off" regarding the specific outcome you want to achieve, like just trying to find ways to make things freer, more efficient, and faster, then you might find some more revolutionary and substantive solutions more quickly.

Kevin: When do you think you were most misunderstood? You mentioned that this might have happened many times, right?

Gavin: Well, I think it’s quite common when working on 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 operation 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 may not always clearly recognize the current state of technology, or that the current cutting edge is not optimal. Only when you analyze deeply and truly understand the existing problems can you better grasp why a certain solution might be effective.

Deep Understanding of Knowledge is Key to Driving Major Breakthroughs

Kevin: So how do you start? Because if you follow the classic method, you have a problem and then look for a solution. But if your ideas are more abstract, how do you begin?

Gavin: If you start with "I have this problem, and I want to find a solution," I think that applies to smaller incremental problems.

For larger problems, you might need to be very lucky to stumble upon a solution. Or you could be like Bill Gates and say, "I will invest my considerable wealth into this problem." But assuming you are neither extremely lucky nor extremely wealthy, you might just choose to start with smaller problems. Because there are many more small problems than large ones, and they are more segmented and detailed, so there are relatively fewer people focusing on them. This means these problems may be easier to solve and easier for you to discover and utilize.

So, I think this "top-down, define the outcome first" approach is more suitable for small problems and not for large problems unless you have extremely abundant resources or immense luck.

That's why I would 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, like the Rust programming language, an Android phone, or a CPU. It also includes:

• Various fields of mathematics

• Different branches of engineering

• Human perceptions of the world

• Goods and services already sold in the market

• Projects that have already been deployed

• Open-source software

All of these can be seen as "components" that you can utilize when building something. By combining these components, along with some novelty or creativity in knowledge, you can create something useful that may be used to solve one or more problems. I believe this is the essence of creation.

You can easily achieve this at a lower level. For example, I can write a new program that can perform some matching and create a trading bot that may achieve some success shortly thereafter. This is solving a relatively small problem.

Academic research usually operates at a higher level of abstraction. Scholars still try to solve problems by recombining ideas, adding a bit of creativity and innovation in knowledge, but they are attempting to address some "larger" problems (even though these problems may not always be widely understood or may not seem very important). These problems are not necessarily big issues that many people care about, nor are they necessarily very significant problems that need to be solved. However, even so, they are still creating more useful human knowledge, which is meaningful in itself.

There are many classic examples, such as some theoretical research from the early 20th century that led to laser theory, which was ultimately used to create CDs. Without this theoretical research, CDs could not have been invented. But at the time these theoretical studies were completed, no one knew what they were useful for. They were "useless" for a long time, even decades. But when they were finally applied, they sparked 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 a spectrum between immediately practical things and seemingly purely theoretical things. And I myself probably sit somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

I try to propose some new engineering understandings that do not mean "deploying will increase trading volume by 10% tomorrow." Instead, I hope that when applied correctly, it could become part of the next generation of systems, bringing a 1,000% or even 1,000,000% increase in trading volume.

Of course, you cannot be entirely certain of this because you are not merely pursuing a specific outcome. Instead, you are pursuing a deep understanding of knowledge. I believe that a better understanding of knowledge itself can lead to great results, and not just one great result, but potentially multiple significant outcomes.