Read Write Own

Read Write Own Plot Summary

Introduction

The internet has undergone a profound transformation since its inception, evolving from an open, decentralized system into one dominated by corporate platforms that exercise unprecedented control over our digital lives. This shift has concentrated power and wealth in the hands of a few technology giants while leaving users, creators, and developers increasingly vulnerable to exploitation. What began as a democratizing force has become, in many ways, a system of digital feudalism where users contribute value but receive little ownership or control in return. Blockchain networks represent a potential solution to this imbalance by enabling a new internet architecture that combines the openness of early protocols with the sophisticated capabilities of modern platforms. By encoding rules in immutable software rather than corporate policies, these networks can make credible commitments about future behavior that traditional companies simply cannot match. The emergence of this "ownership layer" for the internet could redistribute billions of dollars from platform shareholders to the communities that actually create value, fundamentally altering power dynamics in the digital economy and restoring the internet's original promise as a technology that distributes rather than concentrates power.

Chapter 1: The Evolution of Internet Networks: From Open Protocols to Corporate Control

The internet has evolved through distinct phases, each characterized by different network architectures that fundamentally shape power dynamics and economic outcomes. The early internet, often called the "read era" (approximately 1990-2005), was built on protocol networks like email and the web that democratized information access. These open systems were controlled by communities rather than corporations, allowing anyone to access and build upon them without permission. The architecture of these networks distributed power to the edges, enabling innovation without centralized gatekeepers. The "read-write era" (2006-2020) saw the rise of corporate networks that democratized publishing. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube made it easy for anyone to create and share content with mass audiences. These networks initially attracted users with free tools and services but eventually shifted to extracting value once they achieved dominant market positions. This "attract-extract cycle" has become a predictable pattern: corporate networks start open and friendly to complementary services but inevitably become restrictive and exploitative as they grow. Corporate networks succeeded because they could raise capital to build advanced features and subsidize growth. They offered superior user experiences compared to protocol networks like RSS, which lacked centralized databases and funding mechanisms. However, this success came at a cost: power concentrated in the hands of a few corporations that now control the digital lives of billions. These companies charge exorbitant take rates, sometimes approaching 100%, and can change rules unilaterally, leaving users, creators, and developers vulnerable. Now, a third phase is emerging: the "read-write-own era." This phase is enabled by blockchain networks, which combine the best aspects of previous network architectures. Like protocol networks, they are open and community-governed with predictably low take rates. Like corporate networks, they can fund development and provide advanced features. The key innovation is that blockchain networks can make strong commitments about future behavior through code that resists manipulation, giving users genuine ownership and control over their digital assets and relationships. The shift toward ownership represents a natural evolution of internet architecture and offers a path to counteract the consolidation of power by Big Tech companies. By understanding how network design determines outcomes, we can build a more equitable digital future where power and economic benefits are distributed among all participants rather than concentrated at the center.

Chapter 2: The Fundamental Flaws of Corporate Networks: Extraction and Misaligned Incentives

Corporate networks transformed the internet landscape by creating centralized platforms that made publishing content remarkably easy. Unlike protocol networks, which distributed control among participants, corporate networks placed a single company at the center with complete authority over the network. This design allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to quickly develop advanced features, raise capital, and grow rapidly. The initial success of corporate networks stemmed from their ability to solve real user problems. YouTube made video hosting free and simple when it was previously expensive and complex. Instagram offered free photo filters when competitors charged for similar tools. These companies employed a strategy called "come for the tool, stay for the network" – attracting users with useful tools that piggybacked on existing networks, then enticing them to join their own networks. Once users were locked in, network effects made these platforms increasingly valuable and difficult to leave. However, as corporate networks grow, their incentives inevitably shift from serving users to extracting maximum value. This pattern, the "attract-extract cycle," follows the S-curve of technology adoption. Early in the curve, networks focus on growth and treat complementary services well. As they climb the curve and network effects strengthen, platforms begin wielding power over users and third parties. The relationship turns hostile as platforms capture more revenue flowing through the network, often by restricting third-party access or raising effective take rates through algorithmic changes. Facebook's relationship with the game maker Zynga illustrates this dynamic perfectly. Initially, Facebook welcomed Zynga's games like FarmVille, which drove significant engagement and revenue. But as Facebook grew more powerful, it diversified its revenue sources and ripped up its partnership with Zynga, nearly destroying the company. Similarly, Twitter initially welcomed third-party developers but later restricted their access, effectively killing its developer ecosystem. This pattern has repeated across virtually all corporate networks. The consequences of this cycle extend beyond individual companies. Innovation suffers as entrepreneurs and investors become wary of building on corporate platforms. Without third-party developers, corporate networks must rely solely on their employees for new features, limiting creativity and problem-solving. Platform risk – the danger that a platform will change rules to a builder's detriment – has dried up venture funding for applications built on social platforms. Meanwhile, users lose trust when functions like algorithmic rankings and content moderation are managed inside black boxes by profit-driven entities. Despite these problems, corporate networks have played a significant role in growing the internet. They've helped bring advanced services to billions of users and lowered barriers to publishing. But their fundamental design creates misaligned incentives between platform owners and network participants, leading to high take rates, unpredictable rule changes, and power imbalances. This structural flaw cannot be fixed by well-intentioned employees or better management – it's inherent to the corporate network model itself.

Chapter 3: Blockchain Architecture: Creating Credible Commitments through Code

Blockchain networks represent a fundamental reimagining of how digital systems can be structured. Unlike traditional computers where hardware controls software, blockchains invert this relationship – software governs a network of hardware devices. This seemingly subtle distinction enables a revolutionary capability: the ability to make strong, software-enforced commitments that cannot be unilaterally changed by any individual or organization. At their core, blockchains are a new kind of computer – not physical devices you can hold, but virtual computers defined by their functional properties. They maintain state (information storage) and allow that state to be modified according to programmed rules. What makes them unique is how they achieve consensus about their state through cryptography and game theory. A network of validators, incentivized by token rewards, collectively maintains and secures the system, making it extremely difficult for any single entity to manipulate. This architecture solves a fundamental problem that has plagued internet networks: the inability to make credible long-term commitments. When Google or Facebook makes promises about how they'll treat user data or developer access, nothing truly binds them to those commitments. Management can change policies whenever it serves corporate interests. In contrast, blockchain networks encode rules in software that resists tampering, allowing them to make trustworthy promises about future behavior. Contrary to popular misconception, blockchains are not primarily about anonymity or secrecy. In fact, major blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum are remarkably transparent, with all transactions publicly visible and traceable. Their security comes not from hiding information but from cryptographic verification and economic incentives that make attacks prohibitively expensive. The term "crypto" refers to cryptographic authentication, not encryption or anonymity. Critics who dismiss blockchains often fail to appreciate their unique value proposition. Many technologists, particularly those working within established companies, view blockchain limitations as weaknesses rather than strengths. They prioritize traditional metrics like processing speed and storage capacity over the ability to make credible commitments. This perspective misses how blockchains enable entirely new categories of applications that simply cannot exist on traditional computing platforms. The significance of blockchains extends far beyond digital currencies. As general-purpose computers, they can run any software, including networks that improve upon existing ones by offering lower fees, greater transparency, fairer governance, and shared economic benefits. By putting code in charge rather than corporations, blockchain networks create a new foundation for internet services that aligns incentives between platform builders and users, potentially resolving the fundamental tensions that plague corporate networks.

Chapter 4: Token Economics: Aligning Incentives and Distributing Ownership

Tokens are the fundamental building blocks that enable ownership in blockchain networks. While often misunderstood as merely speculative assets, tokens are actually versatile data structures that can represent ownership of anything digital – from currency and voting rights to media and virtual goods. They function as an elegant abstraction that encapsulates complex code into a simple, programmable wrapper. The power of tokens lies in their ability to make digital ownership real. In corporate networks, users don't truly own their digital assets or identities – platforms do. Facebook can revoke your account, Twitter can change its algorithm to reduce your reach, and game companies can modify or eliminate virtual items you've purchased. With blockchain-based tokens, ownership shifts from platforms to users. The code governing tokens makes strong commitments that cannot be unilaterally changed, giving users genuine control over their digital possessions. Tokens come in two main varieties: fungible and non-fungible. Fungible tokens like Bitcoin or Ethereum's ether are interchangeable – one unit is equivalent to any other unit. Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are unique, more like individual books on a shelf than identical dollar bills. NFTs can represent digital art, virtual land, game items, access rights, or any other unique digital asset. Both types enable software to hold and control value directly, rather than merely referencing value stored elsewhere. Beyond representing assets, tokens serve as powerful coordination mechanisms. They align incentives among network participants by distributing ownership based on contribution. Early adopters, developers, creators, and users can all receive tokens that give them both economic upside and governance rights in the network. This transforms passive consumers into active stakeholders with genuine influence over the network's future. This stakeholder model stands in stark contrast to corporate networks, where a small group of investors, founders, and employees capture nearly all the value. When Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter succeeded, the users who built these networks by creating content and growing communities received virtually nothing. Blockchain networks flip this dynamic by making users owners from the beginning, often allocating more than 50% of tokens to the community through various mechanisms like airdrops, developer rewards, and user incentives. The implications of this shift are profound. By making digital ownership accessible and meaningful, tokens enable new economic models that more fairly distribute value among all who contribute to a network's success. They create persistent digital identities that users control, reducing switching costs between services. And they transform the relationship between platforms and users from exploitation to collaboration, as both benefit when the network grows and succeeds.

Chapter 5: Governance Models: Constitutional Systems for Digital Communities

Network governance determines who makes decisions about a network's rules, features, and economics. Protocol networks like email and the web approximate democracies, with decisions emerging from rough consensus among developers, businesses, and users. Corporate networks function as dictatorships, with management teams making unilateral decisions that often prioritize profits over user interests. Blockchain networks offer a third path: constitutional governance encoded in software. The nonprofit model has been proposed as a solution to corporate network problems, with Wikipedia often cited as an example. However, Wikipedia represents a special case with low ongoing development costs and limited need for product evolution. Most internet services require substantial investment to compete with for-profit rivals. Mozilla (Firefox) and OpenAI both started as nonprofits but later created for-profit subsidiaries to access capital markets and pursue more aggressive growth strategies. The nonprofit model sounds appealing in theory but struggles in practice against well-funded corporate competitors. Federated networks like Mastodon represent another alternative, breaking large networks into smaller, independently operated servers that communicate through shared protocols. While this approach gives users more choice about where to spend their time, it suffers from two key weaknesses. First, cross-server interactions create friction that degrades user experience. Second, popular servers can still accumulate disproportionate power and potentially "coup" the network by changing rules or restricting interoperability – exactly what happened when Twitter abandoned RSS support. Blockchain networks address these limitations by encoding governance rules directly in software. These "constitutions" formalize how networks operate and evolve, making governance transparent and predictable. Some networks use "off-chain" governance similar to protocol networks, while others implement "on-chain" governance where token holders explicitly vote on proposals. The latter approach divorces governance from network structure, reducing the risk that large software providers gain outsized influence. To prevent wealthy token holders from dominating governance (plutocracy), well-designed networks distribute tokens broadly across their communities and sometimes implement bicameral systems that split voting power between different stakeholder groups. Networks also vary in how much they can be modified through governance – some allow comprehensive changes while others limit modifications to preserve core commitments. The ability to formalize network governance represents a significant advance over previous models. Informal governance inevitably produces hidden hierarchies and unaccountable leaders – what feminist author Jo Freeman called "the tyranny of structurelessness." By creating explicit rules enforced by code, blockchain networks make governance intentional rather than accidental. They enable communities to debate, learn from, and improve their governance systems over time.

Chapter 6: Applications: Transforming Media, Gaming, and Finance through Ownership

Blockchain networks are poised to transform multiple industries by creating more equitable and innovative alternatives to existing services. In social media, blockchain networks could dramatically reshape economics for creators and users. Current platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok extract approximately 99% of revenue, leaving creators to fight over scraps from limited creator funds. A blockchain-based social network with a 10% take rate would redirect billions of dollars annually to creators, potentially funding millions of creative careers and improving content quality across the internet. The gaming industry and emerging metaverse represent another frontier. Today's virtual worlds are controlled by corporate owners who maintain high take rates and limit entrepreneurial opportunities. An open metaverse built on blockchain networks would give users ownership of their virtual assets, enable cross-game interoperability, and create economic opportunities for developers and creators. This approach aligns with the vision articulated by Tim Sweeney, founder of Epic Games, who has advocated for open standards and protocols to prevent metaverse monopolization. NFTs (non-fungible tokens) offer a solution to what might be called the attention-monetization dilemma in media. The internet excels at copying and distributing information, creating abundance that makes monetization difficult. Media businesses typically respond by imposing restrictions like paywalls, but these reduce sharing and virality. NFTs create a new layer of scarce value – digital ownership – that can generate revenue without restricting content distribution. This approach mirrors how video games solved similar challenges by making games free while selling virtual goods, a strategy that helped gaming revenues far outpace those of the more restrictive music industry. Collaborative storytelling represents an exciting application that combines Wikipedia-style crowdsourcing with token incentives. These projects enable fans to collectively create narrative worlds, with tokens distributed based on contribution. The resulting intellectual property is community-owned and can be licensed to third parties, with revenue flowing back to token holders. This model widens the talent funnel beyond traditional gatekeepers, creates viral marketing for new intellectual property, and increases creator income through fairer revenue distribution. Financial infrastructure presents perhaps the most immediate opportunity. Despite advances in internet payments, moving money remains high-friction compared to sending information. Blockchain networks can make payments a public good – analogous to public highways – by creating neutral infrastructure with predictably low fees. Systems built on Bitcoin (via Lightning Network) or Ethereum (using stablecoins like USDC) already offer faster and cheaper alternatives to traditional payment rails for certain use cases. As scaling solutions improve, these networks could dramatically reduce friction in global commerce. Artificial intelligence creates both challenges and opportunities for blockchain networks. As AI generates abundant content, the value of media itself may decrease while the importance of curation, community, and culture increases. Blockchain networks can help establish new economic covenants between AI systems and the creators whose work trains them, ensuring fair compensation when AI uses or builds upon human-created content. They can also create decentralized AI systems that distribute benefits more broadly than corporate-owned alternatives.

Chapter 7: Challenges and Criticisms: Navigating Regulation and Speculation

The development of blockchain networks faces significant challenges, particularly in navigating regulatory frameworks designed for earlier technological eras. Securities regulations, created in the 1930s to protect investors from information asymmetries, pose particular difficulties when applied to digital tokens without consideration for their unique properties and functions. Tokens that power sufficiently decentralized networks are widely recognized as commodities rather than securities, as exemplified by Bitcoin. However, the path from initial development (necessarily centralized) to sufficient decentralization remains unclear under current regulatory frameworks. This regulatory uncertainty advantages bad actors operating from permissive jurisdictions while disadvantaging good-faith entrepreneurs attempting to comply with unclear rules. The challenge for policymakers is to create frameworks that protect consumers while enabling innovation. Historical precedent offers guidance: the limited liability corporation, now a cornerstone of modern economies, faced similar skepticism when first introduced. Critics argued it would encourage reckless behavior by shielding shareholders from liability. Eventually, pragmatic compromises created legal frameworks that unleashed unprecedented economic growth while maintaining appropriate safeguards. Another challenge comes from what might be called "casino culture"—the speculative excesses that sometimes overshadow blockchain's technological potential. Media coverage often focuses on price volatility rather than infrastructure development, creating misconceptions about the technology's purpose and value. This speculative environment has led to harmful outcomes, including scams and market manipulation that harm innocent participants. Addressing these challenges requires distinguishing between blockchain's computer and casino aspects. The computer—the underlying technology enabling new forms of coordination and ownership—represents genuine innovation with enormous potential. The casino—the purely speculative activity without underlying utility—creates risks that require thoughtful regulation. The goal should be containing harmful speculation without impeding technological progress. Some have proposed temporary trading restrictions on new tokens until projects reach certain development milestones or decentralization thresholds. Such approaches could align incentives toward long-term value creation while still preserving the essential role tokens play in network development and governance. Time horizons can effectively align individual incentives with broader societal interests. The deepest challenge may be conceptual: understanding that ownership and markets are inextricably linked. Some critics suggest blockchain networks could retain their benefits while eliminating token trading, but this fundamentally misunderstands ownership. If something cannot be bought or sold at the owner's discretion, it is not truly owned. Blockchain networks need token incentives to motivate validators, fund development, and align stakeholder interests. There are no known ways to design permissionless blockchains without tradable tokens.

Summary

The internet has evolved from an open, protocol-based system to one dominated by corporate networks that extract enormous value while offering users little control or ownership. This transformation has created unprecedented wealth concentration, privacy concerns, and barriers to innovation. Blockchain networks represent a viable alternative that combines the best aspects of protocols (openness, community governance, low take rates) with the competitive advantages of corporate networks (capital access, sophisticated user experiences, sustainable economics). The fundamental innovation of blockchain networks lies in their ability to make credible commitments through code rather than corporate policies. By encoding rules in immutable software, these networks can guarantee low take rates, predictable governance, and fair distribution of value. Token economics aligns incentives among diverse participants, transforming passive users into active stakeholders with genuine ownership rights. While challenges remain—particularly in regulatory clarity and combating purely speculative activity—blockchain networks offer our best chance to restore the internet's original promise as a democratizing force rather than a tool for digital feudalism. The future internet should be built by everybody, for everybody—with ownership distributed among those who contribute to its success rather than concentrated in the hands of a few corporate giants.

About Author

Loading...

Chris Dixon

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.Chris Dixon is a general partner at the storied venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, which he joined in 2013. He has invested there in Oculus (later acquired by Facebook), Coinbase, and other companies. He also placed early bets on Kickstarter, Pinterest, Stack Overflow, and Stripe, all of which have products in wide use today. Dixon founded and leads a16z crypto, a division of the firm that he has grown from $300 million in 2018 to over $7 billion of committed capital dedicated to investing in crypto and web3 technologies. In 2022, he was ranked #1 on the Forbes Midas List of the world’s best venture capital investors. Dixon has a bachelor of arts and a master’s degree in philosophy from Columbia University and an MBA from Harvard Business School, and has founded two startups (acquired by McAfee and eBay). He grew up in Ohio and lives in California.Penguin Random House

Read more