There is a growing divide between technology optimists and pessimists. When I was very young, I remember a public debate between critics of the Bible and those who wanted to teach evolution in schools. The same debate is being waged today in various guises: media techno versus Silicon Valley, humanism versus narcissism, progressivism versus material progress, and most recently in The Techno-Optimist Manifesto, venture capitalist Mark. Andresen sums it all up… the battle between cold advocates and immediate advocates. That is, those who want to delay, delay or reverse technology and those who want the opposite.
According to Andreessen, the discussion includes all human activity. It happened in different ways. Technology is playing a bigger role in our daily lives than ever before, as Internet adoption continues to accelerate. More and more interactions are happening through social media and mobile apps. After the currency collapse, almost all economic activity moves through digital railways managed by banks or fintech companies. We stream more, play more online games and work online.
Although many of these advances have made modern life more convenient and efficient, technology also creates problems. Even if you accept that all technologies are neutral, merely "tools" to be used for good or ill, it is not difficult to imagine that there is something dystopian about the technological developments of the last two decades. As many cryptocurrency advocates have pointed out, with the advent of the Internet, our lives are in the hands of a few monopolistic corporations.
This is the starting point of Chris Dixon's new book, Read, Write Yourself. On January 30th they launched building the next era of the Internet. Dixon, who runs the independent crypto division of VC firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), a longtime Andreessen partner, is tracing the network's lineage to find out what happened. Mistake: What began as a network of open, interoperable protocols, now called Web1, became Web2. It's an era where five companies control who can use what, when and why. Fortunately, Dixon sees the future, Web3, which offers real solutions.
Dixon admits Web3 is the talk of the town. According to him, it can be considered a layer of "property" that has been missing on the Internet until now. Although Facebook and Twitter connected the world, they never allowed users to have their own accounts or accounts. It's the same story with a digital bank, blog, or any online login and password. With the advent of blockchain technology, which Dixon calls virtual computers, users will ultimately control their digital lives to the extent that they control their private keys.
Considering the trillions of dollars in funding, how well it's been accepted so far, and the damage the industry has done to its core, it takes a lot of tech luminaries to believe that blockchain can revolutionize the convergence of the Internet. But for Dixon, in addition to its ability to return control of cryptocurrencies to ordinary users, blockchain also offers room for unlimited development. We may not know exactly what blockchain is today, but as long as there are people like Dixon who are passionate about the technology, sooner or later we will find it.
See also: It's time to build
CoinDesk spoke with Dixon to dive into the three ages of the Internet, his career as a venture capitalist funding the next wave of cryptocurrency startups, and whether he thinks direct democracy is overrated or overrated, among other topics. The interview has been slightly edited and completed.
The overall theme of the book is the transformation of the Internet from Web1, with its open source protocols, to Web2, closed and isolated, to Web3 and, more recently, the power of cryptocurrencies. Blockchain is part of the wider open source movement and what is the difference between Web1 and Web3?
In the book, you talk about external technology and internal technology, if you look at the history of computing, you'll find things like the iPhone and those organizations like Apple and Google and artificial intelligence at Stanford. Hackers have a different culture of building things on the edge. The first personal computers - Steve Jobs' Homebrew Computer Club were external. Open source software, Linux and open source software are imported. There is no central integration of computing platforms. Tim Berners, creator of the World Wide Web, was a physicist at CERN. Blockchain fits this mold, driven by transparent ethics and inheriting this culture that believes in shared systems.
Many people call Facebook a "platform" because technically you can build apps on it. Does the purpose of the platform mean that there is a better meaning?
Facebook may be a platform, but it is very weak. There's a long history of entrepreneurs trying to build on Facebook and Twitter and feeling ripped off because they've changed terms and APIs. I think we're seeing that happen with Apple right now, with Epic suing and companies like Netflix and Spotify not making apps for the Meta Quest Pro or Apple Vision headphones. The platform should be a safe and predictable place where developers can build real businesses and have some certainty. If you think of the offline world as opening a restaurant, you can run your own restaurant even if the landlord raises the rent when you spend all that time and money. This is what we have today. Five big landlords whose rules and rents are changing dramatically. This has created a very unfavorable situation for independent developers and startups.
In venture capital, we invest in startups. We want to see a dynamic internet that welcomes startups. One of the reasons I'm excited about blockchain technology is that I see it as a way to restore predictable platforms for entrepreneurs and creators to connect directly with their audiences. This is what the internet was meant to be. I'm worried that the way we're going now, in the 1970s there will be three or four big platforms like television: ABC, NBC, CBS. Everyone spends their time in one of these silos. To me, this is a sad result of a once transparent democratic network. We have to do everything to deal with it.
Ready to say something about Oculus? You've mentioned in previous interviews that you're a little upset with the way Metta is handling it.
I made this investment in November 2013. I'm glad Facebook is investing in virtual reality and Apple is investing in virtual reality. All in all, they did a great job spending an incredible amount of money. I fear that, like the topics I talk about on the Internet, we will end up with two new giant enterprise platforms that have no open source options. There are currently no Linux systems for virtual reality. Both seem to use the same controlled app store strategy with a 30% share of the iOS ecosystem.
I am very optimistic about virtual reality. I think this will be a big problem. I fear we will continue to repeat the same cycle. At first, everyone sees the technology as a toy, then suddenly realize that both companies control the most important resources, such as social networks. At this point we should sound the alarm early.
One of the main differences between Web1 and Web3 is the role of government and academia in developing the Internet's basic protocols. Does Web3 need another DARPA model to succeed?
I don't believe it. Funds are sufficient and this is not a problem. We need more entrepreneurs, more intellectuals, we need clear policies. Because many political decisions are made in the courts, it takes many years. It creates uncertainty and discourages entrepreneurs.
We want to be as inclusive as possible. It would be great if members of academia and government would like to engage constructively. Our research team, led by Professor Tim Rugarden of Columbia University and Professor Dan Bonnett of Stanford University, writes scholarly articles and conducts workshops; Everything is open source. We are trying to get more people involved. Unfortunately, the main reason I wrote this book is that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the blockchain field. There is more doubt than proof.
All technologies have advantages and disadvantages.
You wrote that the show is more fiction than anything else and that the information is free. Does this mean that works of art or other creative works should be valued at the same level as commodity investments or that they should be depreciated in general?
I don't think I meant to say that information is free.
He has stated this in previous interviews.
Well, I add one point. I don't know in what context you said it. I think creatives should be paid for their work. There is one section of the book that I call attention to from the business side of the media business, which is showing people what you're doing in the media by sharing it online and getting paid for it.
The video game industry is a pioneer in understanding that it is better to charge for game features, such as virtual goods, than to charge for the game itself. League of Legends and Fortnite are two of the most successful free-to-play games. I think AI will allow anyone to create high-quality illustrations for free, which will put downward pressure on illustration prices. That's why it's more important than ever for developers to think of new business models that don't just sell games . They sell other things.
Information can be free, meaning content can be free and creators can still pay. NFTs are an obvious example, right? How do artists get paid in the offline world? Artists are not paid royalties for the image. You want to distribute that image and sell original images or photos. Basically, what they are selling is not the actual photo, but a signed and certified copy. NFTs have brought the same idea to the digital world. Content sharing can be coupled with business models that ensure content creators are paid on the Internet, which drives content prices to zero.
NFTs help businesses monetize and generate alternative income streams, but they don't necessarily solve distribution or audience building problems. It came out of a conversation with Bob Iger, who said that if you have a brand identity, it doesn't matter if you use it to divide the work. Have you seen a solution to this problem?
I write collaborative stories where communities of people come together to create narrative worlds. Think Star Wars and Harry Potter, but future versions. Creators collaborate to create stories, Wikipedia-style. I've seen this happen on Reddit where people criticize Star Wars and suggest stories. I have read some material. People have really good ideas. Imagine if these people were rewarded with NFTs and tokens that could be financially beneficial if the story universe was successful. And that solves the distribution problem, right?
I hope that blockchain will be similar to the invention of the new Internet
Hollywood only pursues existing intellectual property because it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to market new intellectual property. If you've got millions of famous fans who helped create a narrative universe, now they have an incentive to evangelize that universe. You can go outside of Star Wars and make your own version. It's the real online way to create real fans with cards. Think about how people get excited about bitcoins, coins or similar things and apply it to narrative stories to print and create movies, video games and comics.
Several high-profile recruits have left a16z. Why avoid going alone?
Well, look, I've been here for over ten years. Among other things, I'm close with my partners Marc [Andresen] and Ben [Horowitz]. What we are trying to do as a company is the best of both worlds. A large company with a platform that helps us leverage our business as a network to save administrative costs and network with Fortune 500 companies, limited partners, and limited partners. Corporations. Policy makers: All relevant bodies. At the same time, with our cryptocurrency fund, we managed to go deeper and more vertical and bring experts to our team.
Are there any important differences between you and Mark?
We discuss in a very friendly way and try to encourage a culture of healthy discussion in the company. What we share are the unifying principles of the company, which is that we are "technological optimizers". You are honestly my whole life. It is important to realize that all technologies have advantages and disadvantages. You can use the hammer to build or tear down a house. We believe that smart regulation balances innovation and consumer safety. But we believe that technology is a force for good and we see that as our mission. We also believe that startups are an important part of technology, that the creation of new companies has been part of the economic engine of America, and we want to participate in that. There aren't many large organizations that are tech and startup friendly.
See also: Coinbase and SEC Debate About Beanie Babies
I generally agree that it's technology neutral, but some things are meant to be disabled. Do you generally like the company's investment in military technology?
Silicon Valley has long-standing support and aid from the US government. Our general opinion is that we are Americans and their allies. We want to do what we can to better support the US government, and it's not up to us to decide foreign policy. We do not have our own Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
You describe blockchains as "almost Turing-complete" computers, while others call them Turing-complete. Why did you split your hair?
There are computer scientists on my team, smart people, who get mad when I say Turing is over. I think some functions you can't do: iteration, random numbers, things you want Oracle to do. So I'm trying to be academically correct. You still have a lot of design space as a developer.
You have said that over-reliance on advertising is the "original sin of the Internet". Advertising has paid for many good things. the once prosperous newspaper industry; Great TV and movies and more. Why is online advertising so toxic?
I'm not against all advertising, but the pendulum has swung too far towards advertising and this has led to an adversarial relationship between companies and consumers. Are you being watched all the time? Click on the lawnmower and you will see a growing pile of grass. Google will wait forever for all my searches and default all my preferences forever without asking. The argument that advertising pays for a free service. There are other ways to opt out of Freemium. Most SAAS programs work this way, such as Slack, Discord, Spotify and many others.
The games have free levels and sell your items. This is how they offer the software for free to 95% of non-paying users. Maybe I'm playing too much Clash Royale; It's a free game. But a certain percentage of users, myself included, will eventually switch to all paid upgrades. So I think there are other ways.
Free software is very important. We want software in the hands of billions of people. But I don't think advertising is the only solution. The two largest Internet-only services, Meta and Google, rely entirely on advertising.
But is there something special about the structure of the Internet that makes advertising problematic?
It was just a historical thing. I talked about it in the book, but payments took a long time to develop. First you need to encrypt it. People forget, but Netscape introduced a very controversial technology, SSL [Secure Socket Layer], which sparked the debate over encrypted communication on the Internet. There was no e-commerce, no online banking, so the only potential beneficiaries seemed to be terrorists and criminals. The conversation was normal. Netscape was classified as ammunition and was illegal to export. They should have a special option for international users.
In the 1990s, there was great political controversy surrounding Chatton's all-in-one administrative chip, the Clipper Chip . So since cryptocurrency took a long time to develop, payments took a long time to develop, and advertising filled that gap. Then it became mainstream in the 2000s with the development of social media and search.
In the last decade, the pendulum has swung again. Most unicorns have acquired paid services, business software, and consumer software in the last 10 years. But we still have a lot based on advertising.
There are many things I would like to mention, you may want to visit before the overrated or underrated tour.
I always like to add little things.
If something happens, definitely don't hesitate. Web2 community .
You mean Reddit and Discord and stuff like that?
The private sector will find high quality technological solutions
Yes, over/under.
I think it's a wonderful thing that five billion people have built a system to communicate and come together around common interests. This is an amazing achievement, I am very professional.
Enough democracy. Do you mean DAO or real world?
Or think about DAOs.
I have a network management chapter in the book. It is an important direction of development. Community-owned digital networks and services promote massive digital networks and services. People are looking for new ways to implement this governance, including decentralized autonomous Uniswap and campus organizations. By the way, I don't think the case is still moot. In my opinion this is not found in the world of the world. If you deal with management professionals, a lot of people collect stuff on a regular basis and I think we see that kind of thing in the online world.
Spot Spot for airplane Spot. It was too much.
I find it an inexcusable word. As I have learned, points are about using people in different ways. There are many people who take the test. There are also common reasons why they are important. Clearly they work like Starbucks or cultural rewards.
Digital currencies for central banks.
not sure For example, what is happening with the USDC. How many digit currencies show how much digital dollars are worth? I mean many trillions of dollars in stable currency. I think it's great work on infrastructure coverage, LESS [Layer 2s] and other masses, and I think the private sector is finding high quality technological solutions. Obviously, we should take advantage of the use of the dollar. But this is different from the situation in which the government tries to build the program.
Income Investment Capital Foundation. Overrated, despised.
I know we are talking about a lot of conversations on Twitter, but my opinion is mainly that I want to start with CryPTo currency currency 2017. -2018, and nothing has happened to Sin. We created a seed and chain for a yard and a chain for Iniswap. I believe we have provided funding for many NFT projects since 2017. It was a Dapper and Cryptokitts series. So I think that financial investment capital can play an important role in financial support. You may not know this. Investment Capital Funding Nature Nature can do things financially when we don't have 10 years of finance. Sometimes such endurance and integrity are neglected, especially when it is unnecessary. Of course, investment capital can mean a lot and there are many different companies. Some people call themselves self-investment capital, and in reality they are as basis or hedge traders. But I think we play a valuable role in the phone and jump ecosystem.
And see You are a criminal if you work for Crystal
Your box only works on A16z. If you are a pre-registration growth, you will find that the prescription fund will discriminate more for a given dollar or BlockCain.
I expect BlockCaIN to be the same as creating a new Internet. In this case, I don't know how we are organized, but compared to the Internet, as Internet volunteers and investors, they will see that they have the Internet on the Internet and therefore they will pay more attention to the Internet. Consumer Internet, financial technologies and institutional investors. At the point of thinking, it will be here.
I can ask a million questions, I want to ask them many times.
How do you like the book?
I loved him very much. Perhaps the best presentation of the best currency I have ever seen. What do you want to ask?
I hope people like you like the book. But I wanted a book that explains it for other men in the world. There is a big gap between me and my negative opinion. So I really hope they have favorite books and have a family to introduce people to. "Hi, this is for my excitement."
Writing a book was very different from Twitter topics.
I don't know if I understood correctly, and I didn't enter. There was a lot of work. But it was fun and beautiful.
This story first appeared on Coinddsk
