Evaluating the use of Crypto/Blockchain Technology during the War in Ukraine

As a society, we are constantly putting freedoms on trial. I mean this metaphorically, but I also mean it very practically. We continuously assess even the most mundane day-to-day freedoms. Should people be allowed to jaywalk? Buy a given financial asset? Be able to smoke inside? These are all questions of personal liberty. We continuously ask individually and on a social level if a given action, or freedom, is more harmful than helpful. It seems the need for such judgments is in our collective DNA. It is part of our cultural evolution.

The use of cryptocurrencies, or more broadly blockchain technologies, is no different; it is a freedom we question. And like any freedom, some will abuse it. Crypto is an extension of the internet, which we know is used for both good and bad. It is naive to think bad things won't result from the use of crypto, but it is equally foolish to think good consequences won't also follow. We have to put each side on the scale and weigh the good vs. bad. We have to put crypto on trial. With this noted, a good trial, or test case, of crypto should be how it holds up in extreme conditions like war, which is about the most intense human experience imaginable.

On February 24th Vladimir Putin gave orders for a Russian invasion of Ukraine. It was a shocking event that has left much of the world watching helplessly in horror. This article aims to look at the use of crypto during the Ukraine War. Many have referred to this as the first “Crypto War”; this is perhaps an overstatement, let's be realistic crypto won’t play that big of a role in the conflict, but it is indeed the first significant conflict where crypto will play a role. The goal here is to give a fair assessment of its use and make the case that the good has easily outweighed the bad.

Centralized War vs. the Decentralized Blockchain 

Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

Many refer to the Ukraine War as `Putin's War.' Whether or not this is fair, the fact that it is referred to in such terms illuminates an important point concerning war – it is centralized and top-down. We usually think of the people at the top when thinking of war. Almost always, one person officially declares war and inevitably has the final say on major actions. Under this person, a small group usually makes significant decisions. One person making all the decisions is too simple. Putin considers many when making decisions, and many influence Putin's decisions. However, relative to decentralized aspects of society, one thing seems very clear -- war is centralized. 

In contrast, the most common word associated with crypto and the Blockchain is `decentralized.' So, from the outset, we can note the contradiction. If war is centralized, something that disperses power will probably oppose war. Even if there isn't clear opposition, war and crypto are certainly not aligned. Wars are economical in the sense someone flips the bill. Historically that is the taxpayer. With a decentralized ledger like the blockchain, people can vote against war by hiding funds; this is an option not available or not readily available with fiat currency. So if nothing else, the blockchain gives an anti-war option; it gives the people some ability to vote against the war and defund it.

With the above noted, we can't say how exactly crypto will play out until we focus on the events on the ground. Many suggest that crypto could support Putin's war efforts by allowing Russia to evade sanctions, and we must admit this is entirely theoretically possible. Crypto could also, in theory, end the war immediately if there was wide adoption. Funds could instantly flow into Ukraine and out of Russia. Unlike assets such as gold and oil, crypto can cross borders with ease. 

How will the decentralized blockchain interact with the centralized Ukraine War? Will it give more voice to the ten that speak, or will it provide the ten thousand who are silent an outlet to yell back?

The Numbers

In a situation where time is of the essence and every second matters, Web3 allows us to raise and distribute funds in an extremely efficient and transparent way that would’ve never been possible through traditional fundraising  ~ Alona Shevchenko (Co-founder of UkraineDAO)

Within a day of the invasion, UkraineDAO was formed to help those suffering in the conflict. The quote above is from one of the critical members whose efforts led to the founding of the DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization). In many ways, UkraineDAO represents a radical experiment in human history, a radical experiment in philanthropy that is entirely decentralized (Note one of the leading creators of Ethereum and crypto, Vitalik Buterin, has been a significant supporter of the DAO.)

The DAO has already raised fifty-four million dollars as of this writing; note one hundred million has been raised in crypto once other sources are accounted for. These numbers are astonishing. Along with the phenomenal amount of funds raised, UkraineDAO offers complete transparency and accountability regarding the use of donations. It is important to note that donated funds are not as easy to track through conventional means. Meanwhile, the blockchain offers a complete provenance of each coin donated. A Bankless podcast with Alex Bornyakov, the Deputy Minister of Digital Transformation of Ukraine, tells how Ukraine uses the funds. In summary, it has been a remarkable success thus far. 

Those that want to help can either send crypto to UkraineDAO.eth directly or take part in buying a Ukrainian flag NFT in exchange for $LOVE tokens.

There is a pointless debate, in my opinion, about who has raised the most; early reports suggested that UkraineDAO raised more than the United Nations (UN). The UN is usually the biggest donor in such circumstances by a large margin. Many have pointed out that the UN will donate billions in the end, which will easily dwarf crypto donations. However, the comparison is silly, as it is between apples and oranges. Consider the following three ways the donations are very different with regards to how and what the use case is:

1. Donations from the UN can't hit the ground as quickly as the UkraineDAO donations can. Thus UkraineDAO provided vital early contributions, which the UN could not do. Note: it is essential to say this isn't inevitable; it has a lot to do with integrating crypto in Ukraine before the invasion. See the link above to Alex Bornyakov.

2. Much of the donations to the UN are from countries, not from people. UkraineDAO donations are almost exclusively from private citizens and thus entirely voluntary. 

3. An actual number would be the people who have access to crypto and how much they donated. Thus, we can't judge crypto as not having a significant effect when it is still not accessible to most of the world. Very few people have crypto wallets and thus couldn't donate through such means. Meanwhile, the UN is a governing body for every citizen on the planet in one way or another. You simply can't compare the ability of the UN and crypto to raise funds. At this time, it is not a fair comparison. 

With all points considered, the critical takeaway is relative to the number of people who can contribute via crypto donations, crypto donations were a sizable percentage of total contributions; the donations were put to use very quickly and transparently. The first test run has gone remarkably well. The ability of crypto to aid during a humanitarian crisis will only grow with further adoption and tools developed. 

As much as the above is a huge success, you could argue the donations are doing little to help citizens who need it to flee war zones and remain safe. Indeed, this is often the case in war. It isn't so much having resources but getting them into dangerous areas to ensure those who need them get them. With this noted, consider the actions of FTX, a popular crypto exchange, which sent every Ukrainian account holder 25$.

 Now, 25$ isn't a vast sum, and it likely only got to a few, as clearly not many have accounts. Furthermore, critics will likely point out that crypto in a war zone is pretty useless. Fiat currency would be much easier to spend. This is a valid critique, and it points out how far crypto still has to go. Much infrastructure needs to be built for this to be a meaningful mechanism to help those in crisis. That said, it is a proof of concept. It proves that it can work on a small scale. Thus, with much-needed work, it could scale. 

The critical question to ask is, what if everyone had a crypto account? What if it was easy to convert crypto to tangible assets on the ground? If the answer to these questions were yes, crypto could do remarkable good in such situations. 

It is also important to consider the use of crypto inside Russia. There are large lines at Russian banks as citizens desperately fear cash shortages. While Russia seems like the enemy, it is imperative to remember that in any war, many of the country's citizens are victims as well. Russia is the enemy, but Russians might be entirely innocent. Many, arguably most Russians, do not support this war. While the Governments opposing Russia want to cripple its government and military capability, they don't want to cripple the people. Crypto could offer an incredibly efficient system as it could get money in the hands of citizens in need while still crippling the governments and militaries in such a conflict.

There has been a heated debate about how crypto could be used by the Russian government to evade sanctions. Is this a realistic possibility? This is a nebulous topic and the short answer is we don’t know, it is possible, and we won’t really know for sure until the conflict is over. There has been speculation that indeed, Russia could accept Bitcoin as payment for oil. 

 With that said, there are many signs that the answer is no. It isn't realistic for Russia to use crypto in any meaningful fashion to evade sanctions. As pointed out on a bankless podcast, Russia has enormous piles of Gold. That is what they plan to use if the Ruble won't be accepted. The thing about the blockchain is it is a public ledger. Huge players like Russia can't use it anonymously. It would require too much work to be kept from the public ledger. As soon as that happens, the crypto community can in effect, sanction them as well. It is possible to seize the assets with a fork etc. Not saying this would or wouldn't happen. The point is Russia wouldn't feel comfortable using it. It would leave just as much risk as using the Ruble.

It seems crypto doesn't have the capacity at this time to fund a war. Many have pointed out that websites used to make crypto untraceable at most complete about 30 million a day in transactions. If Russia were to do this, it would require many multiples of that for daily oil. Furthermore, companies like Chainalysis say they have the power to trace such transactions. The company suggests that there isn't software powerful enough to ensure that transactions couldn't be linked on the blockchain. Finally, the websites used to make crypto untraceable, such as Tornado Cash, are fully willing to ensure their services are not used to aid Russia in evading sanctions. In summary, there is no way Russia could get away with evading sanctions by using crypto and blockchain technology.

The Stories Behind the Numbers 

Fadey woke up at 9 am to a deluge of Telegram messages from friends asking him what was happening on the ground in the western city of Lviv. After a quick scan of the news, he realized his country was under siege. He decided to get out. ~ Source 

The above quote is sadly a very typical story after the faithful Russian invasion of Ukraine. Fadey, the main character depicted in the story above needed to leave Ukraine for Poland, he couldn’t get money from ATMs due to the long line, so what did he do?  “Fadey also took a USB stick with him across the border containing 40% of his life savings, or about 2,000$ in Bitcoin.” All he used to cross the border into Poland was his crypto on a USB drive. 

Eight days after Russia invaded Ukraine, 37-year-old Andrey left St. Petersburg, Russia. Or, in his words, he "ran in a panic" to distance himself from Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime. ~ Source

Andrey from the above story shows the Russian side. He desperately wanted to leave, he left his Ruble savings to his family to survive whatever was coming. He left the country with very little funds to not seem suspicious. If he was leaving and it was suspected he was taking large sums with him the Russian government would have seized it. Thus Andrey converted it to crypto, took a small amount to look like he was going on a short trip, and converted the crypto once in Georgia. 

Like most Ukrainians, Michael Chobanian is reaching for weapons to defend his country from the Russian invasion. Instead of rifles, he’s taken up something much more modern: crypto. ~ Source

While many are using crypto to flee danger, others are using it to defend their homeland. The above quote is about the remarkable story of someone putting crypto donations to use in the form of bulletproof vests for soldiers. The effort both helps Ukraine fight Russia, but it also keeps soldiers alive. The story shows the remarkable flexibility that crypto is allowing, to save lives, and help win a war. Michael from the above quote has also found a crypto exchange, which further helps. As mentioned above, this is part of the process of putting crypto to use, of getting it in a form that can help those on the ground.

The Future of War in the Web3 World

A fascinating question to ponder is, would this War have happened in a Web3 world? Would we see such conflict in a world dominated by DAOs and crypto? There is much to speculate about, and unfortunately, there are more questions than answers. However, I would point out a few key aspects that suggest the answer is NO. A Web3 world would see the end of War. 

Recall the Napolean quote from above. While Napolean was gifted in many respects, perhaps the most notable respect was his ability to produce pithy quotes. In short, the above quote states that if power is concentrated, a few people determine the actions of the many. War is perhaps the most significant coordinated effort that states have carried out. Reference the famous quote “war made the state, and the state made war” Charles Tilly. Simply, the most significant purpose of a state is to produce war, which in turn strengthens the state. But is this cycle deterministic, or can it be broken? I would suggest yes. War makes a centralized state, and a centralized state makes war, but what if the state is decentralized? 

What if citizens could vote to go to war or not? This is something DAOs could realistically produce. Furthermore, if a state decides to go to war, citizens could defund it immediately, voting with their wallets if they can't exercise a democratic vote. With decentralized wallets, funds for war could disappear, and a government would have no recourse to seize them.

If these simple solutions are not to your liking, consider a more complicated one developed by Jason Lowery of the US Space Force, which he refers to as Mutually Assured Preservation. He bases the idea around Bitcoin, but it could apply to all crypto. The thesis is "A war between two bitcoin-anchored nations is a war without winners." Simply, if you bomb another country, you bomb nodes to your currency, thus you effectively bomb your country. If the base layer of a blockchain integrates countries, they can't go to war.

 In a sense, this is the same argument that was used to create the European Union. It was initially called the Coal and Stel Commission which had the goal post-WWII of linking the economies of France and Germany together, making future war impossible. It worked remarkably well. Just a shame Ukraine isn't currently part of the EU, if so, the War likely wouldn't be occurring. The idea behind the formation of the EU and mutually assured prevention is the same, link economies in terms of essential resources, like the Blockchain, and make war highly costly for both parties, thus making it obsolete. 

The concept is related to what is known as the golden arches theory, an awkward name, given the author speculated no two countries with Mcdonald's would go to war with each other. The idea is that if a country has Mcdonald's, they are likely open to trade and thus are bound together economically with other countries that also have the infamous fast-food chain. If your economies are tied together, it makes war unlikely. Crypto doesn't have borders; thus, it will bind countries together as it crosses them.  

Conclusion

The quick mobilization of UkraineDAO and the ability to get crypto in the hands of the people suffering in a matter of days, if not hours, is a massive success for crypto. Web3 gives new power to people worldwide to get out of geographic borders to a degree. While crypto can't stop bombs, it can provide those in the way the ability to endure the bombing. It gives those around the world the ability to connect with them and quickly help them out. If this is the world's first "Crypto War," I give crypto a pass in its first war-related stress test. While crypto is neutral, the hearts and minds of those involved are not. Crypto is expanding hearts and minds across borders.

**
This article was written with the intention of raising money for the people of Ukraine. Please consider donating to UkraineDAO**

By Scott Auriat

Research and Editing: Clinamenic and Web3Sociology

In Collaboration with Lobby3 and UkraineDAO**
**