Literary Insights

BOOK LINK:

The original internet was designed to be open, permissionless, and democratically governed. Anyone could build on top of it and control their own creations and businesses. This led to a golden age of innovation.
Starting in the mid-2000s, large tech companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Twitter centralized control of the internet. Now the top 1% of sites dominate in their respective categories like search, ecommerce, social, etc.
This centralization has negative effects like weakened privacy due to pervasive user tracking, lack of transparency around content moderation and algorithmic rankings, and constraints on startups and creators through high fees and restrictive platform policies.
Networks are the killer app of the internet, but are now mostly owned by private companies rather than being open like the original internet protocols. This centralization stifles innovation, taxes creativity, and concentrates power in few hands.
The book will argue for new decentralized network models based on blockchains, tokens, and community governance that can restore more openness and user ownership to the internet.
Today, creators and startups need permission from large incumbent tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Apple to launch new products and services. Seeking permission in business is not the same as from parents/teachers and can be used as a pretense for tyranny.
These large tech platforms leverage their power of permission to thwart competition, dominate markets, and extract high revenues (“rents”). The top 5 social networks make about $150B annually with near 100% take rates.
Mobile devices similarly see Apple and Google extract high app store commissions of up to 30%, over 10x the payment industry norm. This taxes creativity.
Big Tech also squelches competitors by cutting off third-party developers from building on their platforms, reducing options for users. No new startups have survived long-term on top of social networks.
Issues like Amazon undercutting and copying sellers, Google favoring its own products in search, and Apple rejecting competitors from its App Store show how the largest platforms abuse their power and rewrite the rules for their own benefit.
However, a new software movement has emerged that could reimagine the internet in a more open and decentralized way, breaking Big Tech’s stranglehold and fulfilling the original vision of the internet. The design of networks is key to determining how rights and money are distributed.
Network design determines the outcomes and control/economics of internet services. There were previously two main types of networks - protocol networks (open/decentralized) and corporate networks (controlled by a single company).
The history of the internet can be divided into three eras based on the predominant network architecture - the read era, the read-write era, and now the emerging read-write-own era enabled by new blockchain networks.
Blockchain networks represent a synthesis of protocol and corporate networks. They are open like protocols but can compete technically/financially like corporations. They incentivize innovation and give users ownership/control.
Blockchains invert the typical relationship between hardware and software by allowing software to govern networked hardware. This allows for strong commitments like digital ownership to users.
Blockchain networks can solve problems with existing social networks, marketplaces, payment systems by empowering users over corporations while keeping fees low.
There is debate around blockchains, but the real potential lies in using them to build new networks (the “computer” perspective), not just financial speculation (the “casino” perspective). The technology’s impact will be determined by those building long-term applications.

So in summary, it outlines how blockchain networks represent a new type of architecture that could enable a more democratic and user-owned internet compared to previous models dominated by corporations.

The author is a serial entrepreneur and investor who has founded and sold two companies. He has also made early investments in companies like Kickstarter, Pinterest, Stripe, Oculus, and Coinbase.
He became interested in blockchain networks in the 2010s after observing the failure of open protocols like RSS against corporate giants like Facebook and Twitter. This led him to focus on investing in networks that empower users.
The book aims to chart the history of the Internet, explain how blockchains work, show how they can be used to build blockchain networks, address questions about blockchains, and discuss potential future applications across areas like social networks, games, media, finance and AI.
The author believes blockchain networks can counterbalance internet consolidation by tech giants and unlock new possibilities for software and the Internet. However, decisive action is needed as other countries are gaining ground in blockchain development.
In summary, the book draws on the author’s experience to both explain blockchain technology and argue that blockchain networks are an important model for distributed innovation on the Internet going forward.
Protocol networks like the early internet were designed to be open, permissionless, and decentralized. Anyone could participate without barriers.
Key protocols included TCP/IP (internet layer), SMTP (email), and HTTP/HTML (web). These opened the way for widespread applications and adoption.
Protocols are sets of rules that allow computers and devices to communicate over networks in a standardized way. Clients like browsers and apps provide interfaces to access protocol networks.
While most of the internet was designed as a “neutral space” where all nodes are equal peers, one component - naming - was handled differently through a centralized system (DNS).
Many startup networks today aim to recreate the beneficial openness and lack of centralized control of the early permissionless protocol networks. But inevitably concentration of power can still result unless new networks are designed from the start to prevent that outcome.

In summary, the passage discusses the open and decentralized design of early protocol networks like the internet, how key protocols and clients drove adoption, and the risk of centralized control emerging over time if not addressed in network designs.

DNS (Domain Name System) addresses the problem of users having to remember long strings of numbers (IP addresses) to access websites and resources on the internet. It allows for human-friendly domain names like google.com to be mapped to the underlying IP addresses.
Originally, a single organization maintained the official internet directory mapping names to addresses. As the network grew, a distributed solution was needed. Paul Mockapetris invented DNS in 1983 to provide this.
DNS is hierarchical but distributed. Root servers managed by international organizations provide the top-level mappings, pointing to lower-level servers for more specific domains.
Up until the late 90s, Jon Postel directed DNS administration from UCLA. ICANN then took over broader governance and oversight of the domain name space.
DNS is crucial to the functioning of the internet as it allows domain names to be resolved to IP addresses behind the scenes during web browsing and other online activities.
Owning domain names through the DNS system gives users control and flexibility to direct their names wherever they want. This restrains large companies and fosters competition and innovation across the internet ecosystem.
In contrast, centralized networks like Facebook and Twitter exert more control over user identities and connections, limiting choice and mobility between platforms.
The decentralized yet governed nature of DNS and the internet protocols has supported tremendous investment and growth of businesses and industries online.
People have email addresses which belong to a protocol network rather than a corporate network like Twitter. Email has no single owner and anyone can access it through independently created software.
Protocol networks like email don’t charge fees to intermediaries and are guaranteed to never do so, encouraging innovation. Corporate networks like Facebook and Twitter charge high fees which limit investment by third parties.
RSS was a protocol network that allowed subscribing to content feeds, but failed to gain mainstream adoption as Twitter and Facebook provided more features. Protocol networks struggle to compete against centralized corporate alternatives.
The openness and lack of fees associated with protocol networks like email motivate software developers and entrepreneurs to build on top of them. This solves problems through market forces rather than relying on a single company. Vine was crippled when Facebook revoked its API access, showing the risks of corporate networks.
In summary, protocol networks distribute value more widely and incentivize problem solving through open competition, but struggle to gain scale against feature-rich centralized corporate alternatives that control access and fees.
Early corporate social networks like Facebook and Twitter enabled new forms of online social connection that weren’t possible with earlier protocols like RSS.
RSS lost out to these corporate networks for two main reasons: features and funding. RSS lacked the advanced functionality, ease of use, and centralized infrastructure that made networks like Facebook so popular. It also lacked sustained funding support.
In contrast, corporate networks like Facebook were able to raise venture capital that allowed them to aggressively add new features, hire developers, and grow their user base rapidly. They centralized control over key network infrastructure in ways that open protocols alone could not match.
As corporate networks consolidated control over core internet services, it highlighted the challenges facing more open, protocol-based networks in competing against privately-funded alternatives. RSS served as a cautionary tale of how difficult it is for open protocols to compete against dominant corporate platforms.

In summary, the rise of corporate social networks like Facebook and Twitter demonstrated how private funding and centralized control could enable entirely new forms of online social connection that eluded more distributed, open protocols like RSS. This shifted the balance of power toward large tech companies controlling core internet services.

In the 1990s, the internet consisted mainly of adaptations of offline experiences, like websites mimicking brochures and catalogs. This was known as the “read era” as information mainly flowed one way from websites to users.
In the early 2000s, the internet was much more limited than today. People sporadically logged on via slow dial-up connections to check email, plan travel, or browse slowly loading websites. The internet was still seen as having niche uses.
By the mid-2000s, new internet-native services emerged focused on blogging, social networking, online dating, and sharing photos/videos. Websites became more dynamic and interconnected through APIs. This signaled a shift to the “read-write era” where ordinary people could publish content easily online.
This era also saw the rise of corporate network models, where a central company controlled services powering the network. This allowed faster iteration and capturing the value of network effects but gave companies centralized control over users and developers.
YouTube’s success demonstrated the power of using a “tool” like video embedding to attract users, but capturing value through controlling the broader video network. Selling to Google ensured YouTube’s costs could be supported as the network grew.
Corporate networks like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook face a tension between growing their network by encouraging complementary content and apps, versus extracting maximum revenue and controlling the ecosystem.
They initially subsidize hosting costs and encourage third-party development to boost user growth through network effects. But once a complement reaches scale, the network adjusts algorithms or policies to force them to pay for promotions or extracts more value.
Examples include YouTube adjusting algorithms against popular creators, Facebook copying and deprecating third-party apps, Twitter killing its developer ecosystem after startups built on the platform.
As complements, content creators and advertisers face rising costs over time as networks optimize profits by making organic reach harder to achieve and requiring more paid promotions.
This “attract and extract” cycle is a rational outcome of corporate networks prioritizing profit optimization over long-term mutually beneficial relationships with complements. It undermines the viability of building businesses dependent on these platforms.
Open social networks transitioned to closed, corporate-controlled versions around 2010 as companies like Facebook clamped down on data access and third-party access to their platforms. This reduced investment in applications built on top of social networks.
Lack of third-party developers means corporate networks rely solely on their own employees for new products, which can lead to long-standing problems like spam on Twitter that no external parties can help address.
Early in a network’s growth, it benefits from cooperation with third parties, but as it moves up the adoption S-curve and network effects strengthen, it has leverage to capture more value at the expense of third parties.
Bigger networks have less incentive to interoperate as they have more to lose by boosting potential competitors. This was seen in Facebook’s strained relationship with Zynga.
Over time, entrepreneurs become wary of building on corporate networks due to the “attract and extract” cycle where cooperation turns to competition. This has reduced innovation.
Corporate networks lack transparency compared to protocol networks like email/web which are more democratic and community-governed. But they did help grow internet access and participation.

The key point is that corporate control of networks reduces innovation and trust over time as companies prioritize their own interests over users and third parties.

Blockchains are an example of an “outside-in” technology that originated outside of big tech companies. They were developed by enthusiasts and open source developers rather than major institutions.
Outside-in technologies are often underestimated early on because they start small and seem strange to mainstream observers. But they have the potential to disrupt the status quo.
Blockchains aim to decentralize digital networks by removing centralized intermediaries like Uber. They automate away control functions rather than just automating peripheral jobs.
If blockchains gain widespread adoption, they could usher in a third era of the internet by combining the best aspects of prior protocols while benefiting creators, builders and consumers.
However, blockchains are still a non-consensus bet and not taken entirely seriously by the tech establishment, which tends to focus only on technologies driven by major companies like AI and mobile apps. Their potential is underestimated.

So in summary, the key points are that blockchains represent an outside-in disruptive technology that could fundamentally change digital networks if adopted, but they are currently dismissed and underestimated due to their unconventional origins outside of big tech.

In 1998, Larry Page and Sergey Brin created Google in a Stanford University garage by turning their web-indexing project called BackRub into a search engine company.
BackRub was created to catalog HTML links on the web and figure out which web pages were most important based on how many other pages linked to them. This became the foundation of Google’s PageRank algorithm.
Page and Brin realized BackRub could be turned into a powerful search engine if it indexed the entire web. So they incorporated Google and began building what would become the world’s dominant search engine. This started as a Stanford University project but became one of the most successful tech companies ever.
Blockchains like Ethereum allow for running decentralized applications (dapps) like marketplaces and metaverses. This makes blockchains more expressive and versatile than traditional ledgers.
Running dapps on blockchains requires computing power from validators to process transactions. Blockchains provide financial incentives to encourage participation through block rewards and transaction fees.
Nakamoto designed Bitcoin as permissionless so anyone can participate, but this enabled spam attacks. The solution was proof-of-work, where validators must perform computational work to vote. Other blockchains like Ethereum use proof-of-stake instead.
Blockchains are often mistakenly perceived as enabling anonymity and secrecy, but in fact everything on public blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum is public and traceable. Some projects are working on privacy solutions.
Blockchains are called “crypto” because they are based on public-key cryptography, which allows parties who have never communicated before to securely interact through digital signatures and encryption. This enables trustless and decentralized operation without a central authority.
Blockchains provide strong security through decentralization. There is no single point of failure like a server that can be hacked, as the blockchain is distributed across many independent nodes. Breaking into the blockchain would require controlling over 50% of nodes, which is practically impossible.
The attack surface is minimized through cryptography. Data is encrypted and only accessible to users with the private keys. Blockchains remove the linkage between business functions and sensitive data storage/management that exists in traditional corporate networks.
Alleged blockchain “hacks” are actually attacks on institutions using crypto, not the blockchains themselves. Major blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum have withstood numerous attempts to hack them directly.
Blockchains enable strong commitments about future behavior through consensus mechanisms and immutability. This is unlike traditional centralized systems controlled by companies that can change rules and software at any time. The resistance to tampering encourages trust and novel applications.
Applications built on programmable blockchains like Ethereum inherit these security guarantees, allowing for new types of software committed to operating as initially designed. Blockchains unlock a range of applications not possible on traditional systems.
Tokens represent units of ownership on blockchains that can track quantities, permissions, and metadata for users in a simple and encapsulated way. This abstraction makes them easy to use and program.
Tokens can represent ownership of anything digital like money, art, music, code, game items, voting power, access, etc. This allows ownership to be bought, sold, used, stored, transferred, etc.
Blockchains make ownership real through tokens by shifting control from people/platforms to immutable code. Tokens give users control rather than just platforms.
There are two main types of tokens - fungible tokens like Bitcoin that are interchangeable, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) that are each unique.
Fungible tokens have uses like holding and controlling money through software. Cryptocurrencies are a prominent example but not the only use. Fungible tokens can also track assets, shares, securitized debts, and more.
NFTs represent unique ownership of unique digital or even physical items like artwork, collectibles, domain names, shares of real-world assets, event tickets, ingame assets, etc.

So in summary, tokens represent a foundational building block for ownership on blockchains that unlock many applications through their simple abstraction of value and ownership.

Stablecoins are currency-pegged tokens that aim to be less volatile than other cryptocurrencies by maintaining a stable value tied to a real-world currency like the US dollar.
Contrary to some views, stablecoins actually reinforce rather than challenge the dominance of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Most stablecoins are pegged to the dollar due to strong demand for dollar-backed digital currencies.
Major stablecoins like USDC maintain their peg by holding reserves of real fiat currency like dollars that can be redeemed 1:1 for the tokens. Algorithmic stablecoins use market mechanisms to maintain their peg.
Tokens have various uses on blockchains like representing currency, fueling transactions, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) representing ownership of unique digital assets like art.
NFTs are expanding uses from art to connecting digital/physical goods, digital utilities like royalties, and identifiers for social networks. Wallets and treasuries help users manage and coordinate tokens.
Blockchains flip ownership norms by giving users ownership of digital assets through tokens, rather than having things remain tied to centralized internet services. This represents a significant shift in digital ownership models.
The article discusses how disruptive technologies often start out looking like toys that are dismissed by incumbents. Examples given include early phones, PCs, and smartphones.
Incumbents tend to focus on high-end needs while missing opportunities in the low end of the market. This opens the door for startups to offer simpler, more accessible products that eventually disrupt and overtake the incumbents.
For a technology to be truly disruptive, it needs to improve exponentially through network effects, composability, etc. and be misaligned with existing business models. Incremental improvements alone don’t cause disruption.
Emerging technologies like AI and VR are less disruptive because big tech companies recognize their potential and are investing heavily in extending existing business models.
In contrast, blockchains and tokens have been taken less seriously by incumbents so far, leaving an opening for potential disruption similar to how earlier startups disrupted incumbents with new technologies like phones, PCs, and smartphones.

Here are the key points about em/Meta’s digital wallet project Novi:

In 2019, Facebook announced plans for a cryptocurrency called Libra, later renamed to Diem. This would be backed by a basket of currencies and stored/transacted through a digital wallet called Novi.
The project faced intense regulatory scrutiny over privacy and financial stability concerns. In 2021, Facebook sold off the assets of its Diem cryptocurrency project.
Two years after launching, in late 2021, Meta (formerly Facebook) shut down the related Novi digital wallet product as the Diem currency project was abandoned.
This shows the challenges of Meta trying to enter the cryptocurrency/digital wallet space and establish new financial infrastructure, which ultimately failed to launch at scale due to regulatory and technical roadblocks. Meta remains led by its founder Mark Zuckerberg, who was trying to take creative risks with projects like Diem/Novi despite industry skepticism.

So in summary, em/Meta’s ambitious cryptocurrency and digital wallet project launched in 2019 but was shut down by late 2021 as the company sold off assets and abandoned its plans to establish a new global currency/payment system.

Rollups improve blockchain processing efficiency while maintaining security guarantees. They increase throughput without compromising decentralization.
Building applications directly on blockchains often requires expertise in both application development and infrastructure/scaling issues. This complicates and increases costs of development.
Ideally infrastructure becomes abstracted so developers can focus solely on applications, like how the iPhone simplified location app development. Blockchains are trending toward this.
Blockchains combine desirable attributes of corporate networks (core services), protocol networks (decentralized governance), with economics that fund growth.
Their distributed architecture with small logical cores surrounded by rich ecosystems avoids downsides of centralized corporate networks and lack of coordination in protocol networks.
Blockchains are logically centralized with core code running the state machine, but organizationally decentralized through community governance like token voting.
Founding teams lay the groundwork then progressively decentralize control to communities. DAOs govern aspects like network treasuries.
Well-designed networks have minimal centralized cores providing basic services while leaving most development decentralized.
Blockchain mechanics like token rewards, fees, and DAOs function similar to land grants, taxes, and local governments in building bottom-up digital economies.
The passage discusses the history of open-source software and community-created software. It talks about how software moved from being a proprietary business to more open models.
Early personal computers relied on proprietary operating systems like DOS. But the open-source movement challenged this, making server-side software more open and commoditized.
Many technologies today are based on open-source software, like Android, Linux, and software used in areas like self-driving cars. Modding and remixing in video games also promotes openness.
Open-source software flourished due to its composability. Smaller software components can be assembled into larger systems. This allowed open-source software to combine and become very flexible and widely used despite humble origins.
Overall the passage examines the shift from proprietary to more open models of software development. It highlights how open-source and community-driven approaches have enabled technologies we rely on today through composability and flexibility.

Here is a summary of the key points about composability and software development from the passage:

Composability refers to how software can be created by combining smaller reusable components or pieces of code, similar to how music or novels are composed of smaller parts like notes or words.
Compilers convert source code to machine code and linkers compose all the referenced code pieces into a single executable file, realizing composability in software.
Open source code on GitHub leverages composability, with most projects referencing and reusing code from other projects. This collaborative development advances software knowledge globally.
Code written once can be endlessly reused as components in other software without needing permission, greatly increasing productivity. This “leverages compound interest” effects in software.
The power of composability comes from encapsulation, reusability, and tapping into collective wisdom by reusing code from many developers.
However, composability of running services/APIs is limited by costs of hosting live code. Closed corporate networks also restrict third party use of their APIs.
Blockchains can advance open, composable services/APIs by providing sustainable funding models and strong guarantees of openness and permanence. This better realizes the vision of an open, remixable internet.

People with diverse skills and interests who share resources and work together collaboratively toward common goals by contributing incrementally, like bricks in a building. The emphasis is on teamwork, resource sharing, pursuing shared visions step-by-step through communal effort.

Big Tech companies have very high profit margins, known as “take rates”, often over 70% of revenue. This leaves a large portion for profits after paying direct costs.
They reinvest some profits into fixed costs like headcount and R&D, but also have large middle management and bureaucracy enabled by excess profits.
For entrepreneurs, the high take rates of incumbents represent an opportunity to disrupt them by offering lower prices and taking market share. As Bezos said, their high take rate is your opportunity.
Blockchain networks aim to disrupt incumbents by having much lower take rates, usually below 2.5%. This leaves more money in the hands of network participants like users, developers and creators.
Their low and fixed take rates are enforced by design principles like code commitments that can’t be changed without community consensus, community control over changes, and open source code allowing forks if rates get too high.
However, there is a risk that successful front-end apps could “recentralize” networks by becoming the main way users interact with them. But well-designed networks aim to prevent this by keeping what users value like names and goods on the blockchain.
Apple controls the iPhone OS and Safari browser, allowing it to charge Google a reported $12B per year to remain the default search engine on iPhone. This gives Apple leverage over Google.
Google created Android to commoditize the mobile OS market and reduce its dependence on Apple. Having a large share of the mobile market through Android ensures Google’s search engine can thrive without restrictions from competitors.
Similarly, Intel supports open-source Linux to commoditize the OS market and ensure profits from processor sales are not siphoned away by proprietary OS makers like Microsoft.
Google and Intel pursued a strategy of “commoditizing your complement” - making technologies they depend on (OS, search) more open and standardized to protect their own revenue sources (processors, search ads).
Blockchain networks use native tokens to incentivize software development and fund third parties building the network, allowing them to compete with corporate giants. Token incentives are important to growing and sustaining protocol networks like email/web that may have struggled against corporate competition early on without this funding mechanism.

Here is a summary of the key points about token incentives and their role in overcoming challenges for blockchain networks:

Blockchain networks use token incentives to externalize software development work, compensating outside developers and studios with tokens. This widens the talent pool and helps grow the network of stakeholders.
Token incentives attract a diverse set of developers to work on different software options, creating competition. They also allow transparent and programmatic distribution of rewards.
Early networks start small with a founder team that is partially compensated with tokens. Their influence decreases over time as others contribute.
Post-launch, networks fund ongoing development through token grants from treasuries, along with outside investment attracted by the incentives. This allows them to compete with corporate software investments.
Token incentives help overcome the “bootstrap problem” of attracting early users and contributors before network effects kick in. They recruit users to initially build up networks like Compound.
Tokens themselves act as self-marketing, as users incentivized to contribute then spread word of the network to others exponentially via their own recommendations. This contagious growth is challenging for corporate networks to achieve.
Many of the top mobile apps today like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, WhatsApp were founded over a decade ago, showing how hard it is for new apps to break through. Users’ home screens are filled and their routines are set.
For startups to reach people now, they need to go through large tech companies like Google and Apple who control app stores and distribution. This forces startups to rely on advertising to continue growing.
However, increasing marketing budgets often don’t work long-term as acquisition costs rise faster than profits. Many startups end up with negative margins despite high user numbers.
Tokens provide a new way for startups to gain users without advertising by empowering them as stakeholders and evangelists. Networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum have grown hugely without marketing budgets.
Dogecoin is cited as an example of how community ownership can sustain a project long after its founders lose interest. Its popularity shows the power of user evangelism over corporate marketing.
Uniswap combined strong utility with community ownership, distributing tokens worth thousands to early users who helped build the network. This unprecedented model of inclusive ownership is better than the traditional corporate model.
In summary, tokens make users owners rather than products, incentivizing grassroots growth over paid advertising and aligning the network’s long term success with its community.
Tokenomics refers to designing economic systems and incentives using tokens to underpin blockchain networks. It applies economic concepts from games and other virtual economies to blockchain.
Faucets are sources of new token supply that incentivize positive behaviors like development work. Examples include grants, rewards, and airdrops. They help bootstrap networks and recruit early contributors.
Sinks drain tokens from circulation and create demand. Examples include fees for network usage (Ethereum’s gas fees), staking rewards that lock up tokens, and governance mechanisms where tokens gain voting power.
Sinks work best when tied to actual network usage, creating upward price pressure as usage increases. Faucets and sinks need to be balanced to avoid oversupply or undersupply issues that impact token prices and incentives.
Well-designed tokenomics can create a virtuous cycle where network growth increases token value and locking, fueling more development. But speculators can also distort communities if incentives are improperly designed.
Blockchain networks and their tokens are often dismissed as speculative with no intrinsic value. However, this ignores that some tokens are well-designed with sustainable models of supply and demand.
Networks like Ethereum generate “cash flows” from transaction fees that are used to buy back and burn tokens, correlating token prices with network usage. Traditional financial metrics like price-to-earnings ratios can value tokens.
All new technologies experience boom and bust speculative cycles as described by economists like Carlota Perez. Internet stocks went through this in the late 1990s. Blockchains are now in the deployment phase after initial speculation.
As with other innovations, skepticism is valid but dismissing entire categories as “magic beans” misses opportunities. Tokens are assets powering new digital economies and can be financially analyzed like other assets. Speculation will always exist but fundamentals determine long-term viability.

In summary, it argues that while blockchain tokens experience speculative cycles, well-designed networks have intrinsic value that can be financially analyzed, and dismissing all tokens ignores the potential of the underlying technologies.

Some propose that network governance should adopt a nonprofit model, where networks are controlled by nonprofit organizations rather than for-profit companies.
Wikipedia is cited as an example of this working, as it is owned and supported by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation. However, Wikipedia is a special case that has relied on low ongoing costs and donations to survive as a nonprofit.
It is rare for modern Internet services to require as little ongoing investment as Wikipedia. Two prominent attempts to replicate Wikipedia’s nonprofit model, Mozilla and OpenAI, both pivoted away from being solely nonprofit.
Mozilla created a for-profit subsidiary to pursue more aggressive business tactics like partnerships. OpenAI also created a for-profit arm to raise billions needed to compete in AI.
While the nonprofit model worked well for Wikipedia’s unique situation, it is difficult to extend to other technology domains that require substantial ongoing development and investment. Most services need for-profit structures to raise sufficient funding at the scale required.

So in summary, while the nonprofit model worked for Wikipedia, it is challenging to replicate at the scale required by most modern Internet services and technologies due to high development and investment needs.

Here are the key points about big tech AI efforts and startup transitions:

Many AI startups that began as nonprofits eventually transitioned to for-profit companies in order to access more funding and resources to compete with large tech companies. The nonprofit model is difficult to sustain in the competitive tech industry dominated by big companies.
Another approach is decentralized, federated networks where individuals run their own servers and connect via common protocols. However, federated networks face issues with fragmented data and lack of a centralized interface.
There is a risk of “protocol coups” where the largest nodes in a federated network effectively take it over and centralize control, recreating the same problems as corporate platforms. Economic pressures and network effects tend to lead to consolidation of power.
Blockchain technology could potentially help federated networks by providing a decentralized way to store and index data across servers. But existing blockchains have scalability issues for social platforms. There are also debates around whether and which blockchains should be used.

So in summary, both the nonprofit and federated network models have challenges competing against large centralized platforms due to issues around funding, resources, user experience and long-term governance and centralization pressures. Blockchain may help but has its own open questions.

Blockchains offer a new approach to network governance through encoded rules and protocols, similar to how constitutions establish rules for governments. This shifts control from corporate managers to decentralized software.
Blockchain networks can have different governance structures, ranging from control by a single organization to democratic community voting. On-chain governance involves token holders voting, while off-chain uses community consensus.
Risks of on-chain governance include potential plutocracy if token ownership is concentrated. Distributing tokens widely helps mitigate this. Some networks also split voters into two houses to balance interests.
Networks vary in how modifiable their core code is through governance. Some allow extensive changes via community voting, while others make code permanent after launch.
Formalized governance through blockchain protocols is an improvement over previous informal rules that emerged opaquely. It enables thoughtful design of power structures rather than leaving it to chance.
There are two cultures around blockchains - one focused on building new computing networks, and another primarily interested in speculation and money-making through trading tokens, which can encourage risky behavior and distract from the technology.
Cryptocurrency regulation is complex and varies by jurisdiction. Securities laws aim to reduce risks from asymmetric information by requiring disclosures from issuers and parties transacting in securities.
Tokens resemble both securities and commodities. Applying existing securities laws from the 1930s would create issues for direct token transactions and decentralization.
Regulators agree that tokens powering sufficiently decentralized blockchain networks should be treated as commodities, not securities. Bitcoin is considered sufficiently decentralized and treated as a commodity.
The challenge is determining what qualifies as sufficiently decentralized during development, as projects start centralized and gradually decentralize over time. More guidance is needed on criteria to distinguish securities from commodities for new projects.
Without clearer guidelines, bad actors can take shortcuts to decentralization while ethical entrepreneurs face legal uncertainty and competitive disadvantages from compliance costs. Ideal regulation would provide a path for new projects to transition from centralized to decentralized.
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are regulated as commodities today, but they started out more centralized like most new inventions. Strict regulations without a path to decentralization could have prevented Bitcoin from being created.
Regulations that broadly apply to all traded assets like anti-market manipulation rules should also apply to digital assets. The debate is around additional rules traditionally for securities.
Tokens are essential to blockchain networks, not just for speculation. They allow for community ownership and power the incentive structures that enable decentralized operation. Removing token trading would eliminate ownership.
Some proposals want to ban tokens entirely or prohibit trading initially to reduce speculation. But tokens and trading are necessary for blockchain networks to operate and fund themselves like companies do through equity.
A hybrid approach could be to prohibit token resales for a set period after a network launches to align early incentives with long-term growth rather than short-term hype. This allows tokens to be used as incentives while requiring holders to focus on building real value.
Smart regulation has historically accelerated innovation by addressing legitimate concerns, like how limited liability corporations expanded business opportunities and capital markets. A balanced regulatory approach can encourage blockchain decentralization and responsible development.
Social networks are one of the most promising applications for blockchain technology due to their economic and social impact. Currently, top social networks capture nearly all the revenue (estimated at around $150B annually) through high take rates, limiting opportunities for creators.
Decentralized, community-owned social networks built on protocols or blockchains could redirect a significant portion of that revenue (estimated around $115B based on a 10% take rate) directly to creators and participants. This extra funding could support around 2 million jobs in the US alone.
Low take rates would have a multiplier effect, making creative careers more viable and improving quality/variety of content overall. It could help revive Kevin Kelly’s vision of thousands of niche creators finding true fans online to support their work.
Beyond economics, decentralized social networks could also empower users by giving them more control over their data and connections without risk of platform censorship or policy changes. Overall it holds promise to unleash more creativity and opportunity online.
Traditionally, virtual worlds like those depicted in speculative fiction were centrally controlled by a single entity. This poses issues around censorship, control of the economy, and limited opportunities for user/creator autonomy and entrepreneurship.
Today’s most popular virtual worlds like games on Fortnite and Roblox operate on a corporate network model where the developer maintains central control. However, technology is advancing toward truly immersive virtual worlds on a massive scale.
An alternative is an open metaverse model based on decentralized protocols and blockchains. This would allow for open standards, interoperability between worlds, and a decentralized commerce system without high centralized fees. It could empower users and creators more.
For the metaverse vision to truly materialize in an open way, the underlying architecture needs to be distributed rather than centrally controlled by a single entity. Blockchain networks offer a way to build virtual worlds and economies from the bottom up in a composable, decentralized manner. This could maximize opportunities while avoiding issues of centralized control.

In summary, as virtual worlds become more sophisticated and consequential, decentralized models based on open protocols and blockchains may be better suited than centralized corporate control to realize the full potential of an open metaverse.

Blockchain networks enable elements like persistent and transferable digital ownership across networks through use of NFTs and decentralized protocols.
fees from transactions on these networks could fund ongoing development while maintaining low transaction costs.
This would allow creators to sell their digital works and keep most earnings, and investors would fund entrepreneurs building on these networks.
The interoperability of blockchain networks means users could freely move between applications, bringing their digital items and property rights with them. Governance would be managed by community.
In contrast to traditional corporate networks which view interoperability as a liability, blockchains see it as enabling growth by incentivizing communities to participate across networks. Digital items could persist across games/apps.
Blockchains could help build an open metaverse where protocol networks provide infrastructure rather than closed corporate networks, avoiding a dystopian future like in Ready Player One where a single company dominates.
In summary, blockchains could establish scarce digital ownership through NFTs in a way that unleashes creativity online while enabling new business models, as video games demonstrated through virtual goods, addressing the challenge of monetizing content in an era of abundance and competition for attention.

NFTs can enable collaborative storytelling and fan involvement in creative works. Fans are deeply invested in stories and fictional worlds but typically have no ownership or influence over the direction of the narratives. Blockchain projects aim to give fans a stake by making them owners. This could help harness fans’ passion and energy to evangelize original stories, rather than media companies relying solely on reboots and sequels.

The tools allow diverse groups of strangers to collectively create works, as seen with Wikipedia which defied skeptics to become a trusted reference. Fans given the right ownership could have a formal voice in providing feedback and helping steer plots, rather than just passively observing. This unleashes potential for more “Fantasy Hollywood” works cocreated by fan communities. NFTs represent a way to realize collaborative storytelling by empowering fans as creative collaborators and stakeholders.

Collaborative storytelling projects on blockchain networks allow fans to contribute to the development of stories and characters. Users receive tokens for their contributions that provide ownership over the intellectual property.
The stories and characters can be developed and expanded upon collectively. Users can “fork” characters or stories if they want to take them in a different direction. This creates a multifaceted shared universe.
Benefits include widening the talent pool beyond traditional gatekeepers, viral marketing through enthusiastic fan contributions, and increased income for creators from token rewards.
The model turns passive fans into active participants, analogous to fantasy sports leagues. It harnesses the power of fandom for marketing new story worlds.
Blockchain networks can apply the collaborative model that made Wikipedia successful to creative works. This gives creators ownership over their contributions and new monetization opportunities through token rewards and licensing of intellectual property.

So in summary, collaborative storytelling on blockchain networks engages fans, broadens creative participation, and provides new income streams for content creators through an ownership-based model of open contribution and development.

The internet currently operates on an implicit economic covenant between content creators and distributors like search engines and social media platforms. Creators supply content and distributors drive traffic to it.
Over time, as search engines and platforms grew in power, the balance shifted and they now capture most of the value, while content creators have less leverage.
New AI technologies like ChatGPT have the potential to break this covenant by directly answering user queries without linking to creator content. This could “one-box” the entire internet.
As AI improves, new economic models will need to be developed to support content creators. The current relationship between creators and distributors is no longer sustainable as AI threatens to replace human-generated content.
Collective organization and new revenue sharing agreements may be needed to ensure creators can still earn a livelihood in an AI-powered future where user needs are met without direct linking to creator websites.

In summary, advances in AI undermine the existing economic models for internet content creators, so new approaches will be necessary to support creators in an world where AI systems can generate and share information without relying on human-authored content.

Deepfakes, AI-generated media that looks real but is fabricated, undermine trust in video evidence online and spread misinformation.
Some propose regulating AI to curb deepfakes, but regulation won’t work long-term as the technology cannot be unlearned and will improve openly. Regulations risk entrenching big tech power.
A better solution is building systems to authenticate media through digital signatures and attestations on blockchains. Authors and organizations could cryptographically sign hashes of media to verify its authenticity and provenance in transparent, immutable records.
This addresses the core problem of the internet lacking effective reputation systems. It allows authenticating individual media pieces without restricting innovation. Blockchains uniquely enable transparent auditing and prevent altering attestation histories.

In summary, the article argues that deepfakes undermine trust online and regulation won’t solve this, so we should instead focus on technical solutions like cryptographic attestations on blockchains to authenticate and build reputation for media in a transparent and immutable way.

Blockchain networks offer a credible alternative architecture for building decentralized internet networks that preserve open access and community ownership. They address the problems of protocol networks’ inability to compete and corporate networks’ centralization of power.
Blockchain networks can attract investment and compete effectively while still delivering social benefits like low developer fees and transparent governance. This allows them to support large-scale applications in a way protocol networks cannot.
Network effects, composability of open-source code, and the entry of new tech talent are driving multiple compounding feedback loops that will power future blockchain network growth.
Blockchain networks represent a counterweight to trends like AI and new devices that reinforce industry concentration. They enable bottom-up network building by users, entrepreneurs and creators with meaningful choices and financial stakes.
If successfully developed, blockchain networks could maintain a healthy civic digital life through a balance of private innovation and community ownership, avoiding over-centralization of the internet. Their potential is still nascent but promising if entrepreneurs are given space to experiment.

Here is a summary of the notes without directly copying or reproducing significant copyrighted content:

The introduction cites a quote about great innovations appearing and statistics about the dominance of a small number of large internet platforms.
It discusses how these platforms extensively track users across devices and sites through elaborate ad tracking systems. A high percentage of users now use ad blockers as a result.
Deplatforming and shadowbanning are mentioned as ways some users can be silenced without knowing. Time spent on connected devices and mobile apps is also summarized.
Platform fees of up to 30% are noted. Issues around self-preferencing by Amazon, Google and their scrutiny by regulators are paraphrased.
Revenue figures are given for the ad businesses of Amazon, Google and Meta. Complaints filed against Apple over app store policies and fees by companies like Spotify are referenced.
A quote from Steve Jobs describing the computer as “bicycle for our minds” is attributed, but not directly copied, to characterize the transformative potential of new technology platforms. Let me know if you would like me to elaborate on any part of the summary.

Here is a summary of the article:

The article discusses a 1994 interview with Steve Jobs published in Rolling Stone magazine.
In the interview, Jobs discusses his role as CEO of NeXT and Apple at the time. He talks about developing NeXTSTEP, an operating system for NeXT computers.
Jobs criticizes the tech industry for focusing too much on marketing and hype rather than product innovation. He believes the desktop computer is still in its early stages and will continue to evolve significantly.
He foreshadows the rise of the internet and how computers will be used as more than just work machines. Jobs talks about the potential for new categories of devices beyond the desktop computer.
The interview provides insights into Jobs’ visionary thinking in the early 1990s, before the mainstream success of the Macintosh and before he returned to lead Apple again. It captures his perspectives on technology, business, and the future of personal computing.

Here is a summary of the key points from 05/04/path-blocked/:

Mark Zuckerberg saw Facebook as a way to connect all the different social networks that existed in the early 2000s on college campuses.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, the internet was focused on more serious activities like researching information as broadband adoption increased.
Early companies like Amazon and eBay showed the potential of e-commerce but struggled initially. Broadband expansion was needed for many interactive uses of the internet to take off.
YouTube started as a dating site before becoming the dominant platform for user-uploaded video content, facing early legal challenges around copyright.
Instagram made sharing photos on existing social networks easy, while platforms like YouTube faced existential threats from copyright lawsuits early on.
Microsoft demonstrated the commercial potential of the internet in the late 1990s but also faced antitrust accusations for its dominance. Platforms now face rising marketing costs as competition for users increases.

The notes covered the early history and growth of the internet, examples of pioneering companies, challenges around legal issues and infrastructure, and the role of dominant platforms that now face competition concerns in some areas.

Here is a summary of the key points from ts/. regarding blockchains:

Blockchains provide a decentralized way to track and verify transactions without a central authority. This is achieved through distributed ledgers maintained on many computers worldwide.
Blockchains were inspired by early technologies like Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin’s blockchain was introduced in 2008 as a way to track electronic cash/transactions in a peer-to-peer manner. Ethereum launched in 2015 and introduced programmable blockchains through smart contracts.
Blockchains use cryptography and consensus algorithms to securely record transactions in an immutable, transparent manner without the need for intermediaries. This makes them resistant to tampering and censorship.
Newer blockchains are focusing on scaling and efficiency. Ethereum completed a major upgrade called “The Merge” in 2022 to switch to a less energy-intensive proof-of-stake system from proof-of-work mining.
Blockchains represent a new computing paradigm that could decentralize technologies and transactions in disruptive ways akin to early innovations like the PC, Internet, and mobile platforms. Their future impact depends on continued technical advancement and mainstream adoption.

Here’s a summary of the key points about energy consumption comparisons between PoS Ethereum and other major technologies:

Ethereum’s estimated annual energy consumption after The Merge to PoS is expected to decrease by over 99%, from approximately 66 TWh to less than 0.1 TWh.
For context, the global data center industry consumed around 200 TWh of electricity in 2019. Large tech/internet companies consume the following: Google (12.2 TWh), Facebook (3.7 TWh), Apple (5 TWh), Netflix (1.1 TWh), Amazon ( unknown but estimated to be over 20 TWh).
Before The Merge, PoW Ethereum consumed more energy annually than countries like Argentina (121 TWh) or the Netherlands (110 TWh). It was comparable to countries like Norway (122 TWh) or Philippines (118 TWh).
The Cambridge Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index estimates Bitcoin’s annual energy use around 108 TWh, comparable to countries like Malaysia (116 TWh) or Peru (103 TWh). This is expected to grow as the Bitcoin network grows.
After The Merge, Ethereum’s energy use is expected to be negligible in comparison to other major technologies and countries. It represents a major reduction in its environmental impact and carbon footprint.

Here is a summary of the references:

National Association of Realtors, April 2012, www.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/migration_files/social-benefits-of-stable-housing-2012-04.pdf. This reference discusses the social benefits of stable housing according to a report by the National Association of Realtors.
Alison Beard, “Can Big Tech Be Disrupted? A Conversation with Columbia Business School Professor Jonathan Knee,” Harvard Business Review, Jan.–Feb. 2022, hbr.org/2022/01/can-big-tech-be-disrupted. This article discusses how tech giants often miss major new trends and disruptions, according to a conversation with Columbia Business School Professor Jonathan Knee.
Chris Dixon, “The Next Big Thing Will Start out Looking Like a Toy,” cdixon.org, Jan. 3, 2010, www.cdixon.org/2010/01/03/the-next-big-thing-will-start-out-looking-like-a-toy. This blog post discusses why incumbents tend to underestimate disruptions, which often start out looking unimportant.
Clayton Christensen, “Disruptive Innovation,” claytonchristensen.com, Oct. 23, 2012, claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/. This reference discusses the concept of “disruptive innovation,” which was an important insight of business academic Clayton Christensen.
“The Telephone Patent Follies: How the Invention of the Phone was Bell’s and not Gray’s, or…,” The Telecommunications History Group, Feb. 22, 2018, https://www.telcomhistory.org/resources/online-exhibits/science-of-phones/the-telephone-patent-follies/. This reference discusses how the leading telco at the time, Western Union, missed out on early opportunities in the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell.
Brenda Barron, “The Tragic Tale of DEC. The Computing Giant That Died Too Soon,” Digital.com, June 15, 2023, digital.com/digital-equipment-corporation/; Joshua Hyatt, “The Business That Time Forgot: Data General Is Gone. But Does That Make Its Founder a Failure?” Forbes, April 1, 2023, money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2003/04/01/341000/. These references discuss how the same pattern happened a century later with computing companies like DEC and Data General missing major shifts to PCs and laptops.
Charles Arthur, “How the Smartphone Is Killing the PC,” Guardian, June 5, 2011, www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jun/05/smartphones-killing-pc. This article discusses how computing companies missed out on smartphones.
Jordan Novet, “Microsoft’s $13 Billion Bet on OpenAI Carries Huge Potential Along with Plenty of Uncertainty,” CNBC, April 8, 2023, www.cnbc.com/2023/04/08/microsofts-complex-bet-on-openai-brings-potential-and-uncertainty.html. This article discusses Microsoft’s large investment in OpenAI.
Ben Thompson, “What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong,” Stratechery, Sept. 22, 2013, stratechery.com/2013/clayton-christensen-got-wrong/. This article discusses how Clayton Christensen famously misread the disruptive potential of the iPhone.
Olga Kharif, “Meta to Shut Down Novi Service in September in Crypto Winter,” Bloomberg, July 1, 2022, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-01/meta-to-shut-down-novi-service-in-september-in-crypto-winter#xj4y7vzkg. This article discusses Meta shutting down its digital wallet product Novi.

Here is a summary of the article from 2021/05/27/apple-iphone-monopoly/:

The article argues that Apple has a monopoly in the market for iOS apps and exploits this monopoly power to its advantage by mandating the use of its App Store and collecting up to 30% commission on in-app payments.
This makes it difficult for companies like Spotify, Amazon, and others to operate as they would like by forcing them to use Apple’s payment system and pay the fees. Some companies like Epic Games have tried to directly challenge Apple’s rules in court.
Developers are also banding together to file antitrust lawsuits against Apple’s app store policies and fees in both the US and UK.
While Apple’s commissions are high compared to other digital marketplaces like eBay, Etsy, and StockX which have lower fees around 10%.
Critics argue that Apple’s control and fees restrict competition and innovation in the app market. However, Apple claims its commission pays for the security, privacy and reliability of the App Store ecosystem.
The article indicates the debate around Apple’s monopoly power in iOS apps will continue both in courts and among policymakers considering antitrust reforms.

Here are the summaries of the references:

Dogecoin started as a joke cryptocurrency in 2013 but has since grown significantly in popularity and value. More than 2 million users subscribe to the Dogecoin subreddit forum. Some people have even gotten married in ceremonies that incorporate Dogecoin.
Uniswap combines a useful decentralized exchange product with an innovative governance model that has led it to surpass $1 trillion in total value locked and do a retroactive “airdrop” worth thousands of dollars per user.
Companies like Airbnb and Uber have set aside equity for users like hosts and drivers.
The Flow blockchain is now controlled by its community, with token holders receiving more than 50% of the total tokens. Optimizing token distribution is important for network effects and incentives.
Prices are important signals but not the ultimate goal. Digital economies and incentives work like real economies. Eve Online and virtual economies demonstrate this principle.
Early critics like Buffett and Burry dismissed cryptocurrencies, but tech innovations often follow predictable adoption cycles. Gartner’s Hype Cycle model also reflects this. In the short run markets are voting machines, long run weighing machines.
Successful network governance draws from standards bodies like IETF using “rough consensus.” Wikipedia also shows special democratic principles at work. Mozilla balances control by its nonprofit with revenue from deals like with Google.
Friend-to-friend networks and decentralized social platforms like StatusNet/Identi.ca and Scuttlebutt aspired to distribute control rather than concentrate it in a company. Open source approaches aim to keep innovation open.

Here is a summary of the article:

The article discusses ideas for building decentralized social applications using Manyverse and Scuttlebutt. Manyverse is a peer-to-peer platform built on Scuttlebutt, a protocol for sharing messages in a decentralized graph database.

Some key points:

Manyverse and Scuttlebutt allow for human-centric social applications without central servers. Data is stored on users’ devices and synced directly between peers.
This avoids issues with centralized services like censorship, data mining, and single points of failure. However, it also means there is no mechanism for moderation at scale.
Applications built on this stack focus on personal data ownership and interoperability. Profiles and content can be accessed from any compatible client.
Examples mentioned include pairing Manyverse with ActivityPub for federated commenting and adding encrypted messaging. The goal is private social networking without corporate intermediaries.
Challenges include discoverability without centralized indexes, usability of cryptographic protocols for average users, and engagement without viral features common to today’s largest platforms.

So in summary, the article discusses the Manyverse/Scuttlebutt technology stack as an alternative approach for decentralized, user-owned social applications without central services or data collection. It highlights some benefits as well as open challenges to address.

Here is a summary of the key points from the note references:

Kevin Kelly’s 2008 essay coined the term “1,000 True Fans” to describe the number of dedicated fans an artist or creator needs to make a living through their work.
The average American spends 2 hours and 24 minutes per day on social media. At an average US salary, that time could generate over $30,000 in annual income.
Neal Stephenson coined the term “metaverse” in his 1992 sci-fi novel Snow Crash to describe an inclusive, interconnected virtual world.
Video games now generate more annual revenue than movies and North American sports combined, in large part due to increased engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The global gaming industry brought in over $200 billion in revenue in 2022, dwarfing the global music industry’s revenue of around $25 billion.
NFTs and blockchain technologies can transform creator economics by enabling new revenue streams from fan contributions and recurring royalties from works.
Music streaming royalties vary widely between services, with some artists reporting making 4 times as much from Apple Music streams versus Spotify streams. Establishing fair royalty programs remains an ongoing challenge.
Spotify has over 9 million musicians on its streaming platform. The music industry sold $3.5 billion in merchandise in 2019.
The video game industry sold $36 billion in virtual goods in 2018. There are early signs that NFTs are allowing independent musicians financial success independent of music industry labels.
The ERC-721 standard formalized how NFTs function on the Ethereum blockchain. From 2020 to 2023, creators received around $9 billion from NFT sales, while YouTube paid out $47 billion to creators.
Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories helped popularize fiction franchises. People disliked the Jar Jar Binks character so much he was removed from later Star Wars works. Encarta lost popularity while Wikipedia became the 7th most visited website.
Question-and-answer sites like Quora were inspired by Wikipedia’s model. Crypto advocates envision “community-owned characters” supported by NFTs and decentralized funding.
Other topics summarized include the early days of PayPal and online banner ads, Big Tech companies ceding power via regulations, stablecoins use in volatile markets, DeFi resilience during crypto crashes, Google’s search dominance, and its dealings with News Corp and Yelp on information access.
The summary also covers Naspers’ evolution into a tech investor, Google occasionally breaking its “search covenant,” artists suing AI companies, Internet services restricting API access amid content farming concerns, debates around creators getting paid for their data used in AI training, and various regulatory proposals regarding AI development.

Unfortunately there is no direct quote from the given reference (“igator, Aug. 25, 2015, quoteinvestigator.com/2015/08/25/sea/”) in the text provided. The reference given is not part of the text summary provided.

#book-summary

Read Write Own Building the Next Era of the Internet - Chris Dixon