The conversation begins with the fairly typical 'Art Brock inspired' description of the limitations of blockchain and Holochain as a solution. He goes on to summarise his work with Holochain:

Like this is the governance stuff that we talked which are briefly touched on, and there are multiplicities of possibilities of how to manage social groups. And that's actually one of the hopes for this and predictions for this technology becoming more and more used by developers and then by businesses and communities and activists actually. That's actually one of our strategic focuses at the moment, as I'm working with Holochain, at the activist communities of whatever political inclination they may be, to have a Cambrian explosion of social forms, if you will, of social DNA, of how groups constitute themselves, manage themselves, and enter into arrangements with other groups. And that's really where a large part of my interest in this comes from, less that we are suddenly able to speculate more effectively on the rise of some token, but to actually steer ourselves better and require less the central point of failure, like the central authority, to make decisions for us where we are actually much more able to do that by ourselves.

this actually is an idea that the European Union was based on, but that it has gone against, unfortunately, in many respects, which is this idea of subsidiarity, the subsidiarity principle, where decisions should be made at the smallest possible unit or level, and only if they are unable to solve it, be passed up in the ranks. That's sort of the design inspiration where Holochain comes from.