Scan barcode
A review by _walter_
Read Write Own: Building the Next Era of the Internet by Chris Dixon
5.0
Very clear and insightful. If read with an open mind, it will effectively put every-day technologies you take for granted in a new light. It lies next to select company in my bookshelf, alongside [b:The Bitcoin Standard|36448501|The Bitcoin Standard The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking|Saifedean Ammous|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1517051735l/36448501._SY75_.jpg|58151380] by Ammous (changed my understanding of Bitcoin, in particular, and money/economics, in general), [b:The Cold Start Problem|55338968|The Cold Start Problem How to Start and Scale Network Effects|Andrew Chen|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1627895516l/55338968._SY75_.jpg|86301069] by Chen (changed my understanding of network effects), and [b:Zero to One|18050143|Zero to One Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future|Peter Thiel|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1630663027l/18050143._SY75_.jpg|25332940] by Thiel (changed how I see globalization, monopolies, and the role of startups), to name a few. It's that good.
The premise of the book is that network design is destiny.
In essence, how a network is built and the how information flows between nodes have outsized implications regarding which activities are allowed to take place in the network, the creation and disbursement of incentives, which new functions are added, network governance, and more importantly, how much value/profit is captured.
Network topology is thus the single, most accurate predictor of how the network will mature once it reaches critical mass. To drive home this important concept of network destiny, the author revisits the still unfolding history of the internet in three eras, each precipitated by their dominant network catalysts.
The “Read Era” of the internet was brought about by Protocol Networks, like the Web and Email. They democratized reading, as in anyone with a connection could access content published by people and organizations with the resources and know-how to do so. These networks were open, permissionless, and egalitarian. They allowed anyone to build on top of them and create value - mostly by solving important problems such as dealing with spam or making web pages easier to search. Profits flowed to the edges of the network where people adding value to the network could rightfully claim the spoils and continue building.
The “Read-Write Era” was the result of the rise of Corporate Networks. They democratized publishing. Anyone with access to a computer could now write blogs with ease, as well as post their “status”, rants, etc. Whereas Protocol networks are open and enriched by a thriving community of developers who invest their free time making it better, Corporate network are “gated” and private. Their control is centralized; all power resides at the center, and all profits flow to the owners of the network and away from the creators (at the edges).
The third era is the “Read-Write-Own Era”, a product of the much maligned and misunderstood Blockchain Networks. These network combine the best parts of the previous two, while fixing the problems that plague both of them. They are open, community owned, egalitarian, decentralized, and self-sustaining. These networks have the power to encode contracts that programmatically enshrine and enforce the “commitments” made to the users of the network at the time of their creation. These are immutable (unless the community votes change them), and predictable (since these commitments are triggered programmatically and are “set in stone”, one can rest assured that no single authority will be able to change terms and conditions whenever it suits them, as Corporate networks can).
And because in properly designed blockchains the disbursement of incentives are built in such a way that it rewards creators, contributors, and participants, there is no need to thirst for profits by relying on the venture capital model that is the flywheel of Corporate Networks. Blockchains can be self-sustaining.
Dixon is a brilliant tech writer, and his use of analogies to explain the difference between decentralized networks such as Blockchains and their nemesis-Corporate networks-illustrate this: cities vs. theme parks.
Blockchains (and Protocol networks, to great extent), he explains, are like great cities. They enjoy a rich combination of public and private spaces that create a thriving community around them. The public parks attract visitors, the public roads and sidewalks allow people to move about freely and discover new and interesting (but private) places such as stores, restaurants, theaters, etc. All this leads to an exchange of resources that allow for re-investment in both public and private works, and so on. Land grants (tokens) incentivize developers to create new spaces or improve existing ones. The community has a say in the form of votes.
In contrast, Corporate networks are like theme parks. Once you go past their gates they control the entire experience from beginning to end. They decide how much to charge, what to build, who can enter and how long they stay. They also decide how much profit flows to the artists and contributors that provide the content and keep the place running. They own all intellectual property. What’s more, all decisions are made by a central authority (namely a CEO or a board) and there is no guarantee that their commitments will remain intact - they change their terms and commitments frequently in response to economic pressures.
I guess theme parks can be nice and all, but I don't know who would like to live in them 24/7 (actually, there's a town in Florida called "Celebration" which was created by the Walt Disney Corporation - the reviews are not stellar). Also, wasn't Jurassic Park a theme park too at some point? And look at what happened... I for one, don't enjoy Zuckersaurus rex running around moving fast and breaking things...
Blockchain networks will allow us to build more equitable virtual spaces where ownership rights are enshrined and protected. Where the power and governance resides with the communities that built and depend on them, and where the possibilities for what can be created are endless. If you can code it, you can create it! Corporate networks and their overlords need not rule the future of the internet.
I will stop here cause I cannot continue this review without diminishing the author’s own work by fumbling along with his arguments any further. Instead, I leave you with his parting words:
The premise of the book is that network design is destiny.
In essence, how a network is built and the how information flows between nodes have outsized implications regarding which activities are allowed to take place in the network, the creation and disbursement of incentives, which new functions are added, network governance, and more importantly, how much value/profit is captured.
Network topology is thus the single, most accurate predictor of how the network will mature once it reaches critical mass. To drive home this important concept of network destiny, the author revisits the still unfolding history of the internet in three eras, each precipitated by their dominant network catalysts.
The “Read Era” of the internet was brought about by Protocol Networks, like the Web and Email. They democratized reading, as in anyone with a connection could access content published by people and organizations with the resources and know-how to do so. These networks were open, permissionless, and egalitarian. They allowed anyone to build on top of them and create value - mostly by solving important problems such as dealing with spam or making web pages easier to search. Profits flowed to the edges of the network where people adding value to the network could rightfully claim the spoils and continue building.
The “Read-Write Era” was the result of the rise of Corporate Networks. They democratized publishing. Anyone with access to a computer could now write blogs with ease, as well as post their “status”, rants, etc. Whereas Protocol networks are open and enriched by a thriving community of developers who invest their free time making it better, Corporate network are “gated” and private. Their control is centralized; all power resides at the center, and all profits flow to the owners of the network and away from the creators (at the edges).
The third era is the “Read-Write-Own Era”, a product of the much maligned and misunderstood Blockchain Networks. These network combine the best parts of the previous two, while fixing the problems that plague both of them. They are open, community owned, egalitarian, decentralized, and self-sustaining. These networks have the power to encode contracts that programmatically enshrine and enforce the “commitments” made to the users of the network at the time of their creation. These are immutable (unless the community votes change them), and predictable (since these commitments are triggered programmatically and are “set in stone”, one can rest assured that no single authority will be able to change terms and conditions whenever it suits them, as Corporate networks can).
And because in properly designed blockchains the disbursement of incentives are built in such a way that it rewards creators, contributors, and participants, there is no need to thirst for profits by relying on the venture capital model that is the flywheel of Corporate Networks. Blockchains can be self-sustaining.
Dixon is a brilliant tech writer, and his use of analogies to explain the difference between decentralized networks such as Blockchains and their nemesis-Corporate networks-illustrate this: cities vs. theme parks.
Blockchains (and Protocol networks, to great extent), he explains, are like great cities. They enjoy a rich combination of public and private spaces that create a thriving community around them. The public parks attract visitors, the public roads and sidewalks allow people to move about freely and discover new and interesting (but private) places such as stores, restaurants, theaters, etc. All this leads to an exchange of resources that allow for re-investment in both public and private works, and so on. Land grants (tokens) incentivize developers to create new spaces or improve existing ones. The community has a say in the form of votes.
In contrast, Corporate networks are like theme parks. Once you go past their gates they control the entire experience from beginning to end. They decide how much to charge, what to build, who can enter and how long they stay. They also decide how much profit flows to the artists and contributors that provide the content and keep the place running. They own all intellectual property. What’s more, all decisions are made by a central authority (namely a CEO or a board) and there is no guarantee that their commitments will remain intact - they change their terms and commitments frequently in response to economic pressures.
I guess theme parks can be nice and all, but I don't know who would like to live in them 24/7 (actually, there's a town in Florida called "Celebration" which was created by the Walt Disney Corporation - the reviews are not stellar). Also, wasn't Jurassic Park a theme park too at some point? And look at what happened... I for one, don't enjoy Zuckersaurus rex running around moving fast and breaking things...
Blockchain networks will allow us to build more equitable virtual spaces where ownership rights are enshrined and protected. Where the power and governance resides with the communities that built and depend on them, and where the possibilities for what can be created are endless. If you can code it, you can create it! Corporate networks and their overlords need not rule the future of the internet.
I will stop here cause I cannot continue this review without diminishing the author’s own work by fumbling along with his arguments any further. Instead, I leave you with his parting words:
The future of the internet is us-you and me.
The internet is, increasingly, where we live our lives, and it overlaps more and more with the so-called real world.
Think about how much of your life you live online, how much of your identity resides there, how much you interact with friends whom you've developed relationships with through the medium of the internet.
Whom do you want in control of that world?*