I have heard from some of you that you don't like it when I write about crypto and NFTs. This personal blog is supposed to be largely about city building after all. So today I thought I would write about crypto and NFTs. More specifically, this podcast episode, which I watched last night.
It's with Marc Andreessen and Chris Dixon of the venture firm a16z, and it's actually less about specific things like NFTs and more about the reinvention of the internet in general. Why I found it particularly interesting is that Marc co-invented the first widely-used web browser. Anyone remember Netscape?
So he was around for what we are now calling web 1 and he is around for what we are today calling web 3. And there are lots of parallels between then and now. Similar to today with crypto, the early internet had lots of critics and lots of people who thought it was dumb and that it would never amount to much.
Oops.
Here are a few other thoughts and ideas from the podcast that I found interesting (some of them even relate to city building):
No matter how many times we have seen the same movie, humanity seems doomed to repeat the same mistakes when it comes to, among other things, embracing new ideas and innovations. I agree with Marc in that part of this is generational. Younger people are often more open to new ideas because they view it as a way for them to establish themselves and make their mark on the world. Whereas older people (established people) often view new ideas and change as a threat to their current position in the world.
I have heard from some of you that you don't like it when I write about crypto and NFTs. This personal blog is supposed to be largely about city building after all. So today I thought I would write about crypto and NFTs. More specifically, this podcast episode, which I watched last night.
It's with Marc Andreessen and Chris Dixon of the venture firm a16z, and it's actually less about specific things like NFTs and more about the reinvention of the internet in general. Why I found it particularly interesting is that Marc co-invented the first widely-used web browser. Anyone remember Netscape?
So he was around for what we are now calling web 1 and he is around for what we are today calling web 3. And there are lots of parallels between then and now. Similar to today with crypto, the early internet had lots of critics and lots of people who thought it was dumb and that it would never amount to much.
Oops.
Here are a few other thoughts and ideas from the podcast that I found interesting (some of them even relate to city building):
No matter how many times we have seen the same movie, humanity seems doomed to repeat the same mistakes when it comes to, among other things, embracing new ideas and innovations. I agree with Marc in that part of this is generational. Younger people are often more open to new ideas because they view it as a way for them to establish themselves and make their mark on the world. Whereas older people (established people) often view new ideas and change as a threat to their current position in the world.
Tokens - Brandon Donnelly
Marc drops a number of books throughout the talk and one of them is The Mystery of Capital -- Why Capitalism Succeeds in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. This is a well known book by Hernando De Soto and the big idea is that property ownership and property rights are really the fundamental ingredients in our modern world. People need to know that if they hold title and invest money into something, it's not just going to get taken away by someone. And it is this underlying legal structure that has allowed people to leverage property into wealth.
This is a fascinating observation in its own right, but it also relates to crypto. Hear me out. Chris Dixon makes the argument in the episode that web1 democratized information (anyone can search for stuff), and that web2 democratized publishing (anyone can share stuff through platforms like Twitter or the blogging platform I'm writing on right now). He then goes on to argue that the promise of web3 and crypto is really to democratize ownership of the internet. Anyone can buy crypto tokens.
Why might this be a big deal? Well if property rights in our offline world are a fundamental ingredient to modern society, it seems logical to me that property rights in our digital world(s) might also be equally transformative. And this is precisely one of the things that blockchain technologies enable for the very first time.
Finally, on a mostly unrelated note, I liked Marc's comparison of happiness vs. satisfaction in life. Happiness, he explains, is like getting an ice cream cone on a hot summer day. The first and second feel great, but after that you move on. Satisfaction on the other hand is enduring. It's the feeling you get from working on something really challenging and then finally succeeding. And that's exactly how I feel about real estate development. There are lots of shitty days and lots of grinding. But in the end, I do feel very satisfied.
Crypto tokens are kind of like shares in a company, or at least they can be pretty similar if one wants them to be. Here is an interesting post by Tomasz Tunguz comparing the two. More specifically, he looks at inflation and deflation for both kinds of assets. According to Tomasz's numbers, the average annual change in share count for software companies is about +5% (see above chart). Though there are some notable exceptions, such as Apple, who are aggressively buying back shares and decreasing their counts.
The median inflation rate for crypto tokens, on the other hand, is much higher. Based on the projects that Tomasz chose for his post, the median rate is about 25%. Given the age of most of these crypto tokens, this generally makes sense. Younger companies also tend to have higher inflation rates as they raise outside money and issue new shares to attract talent. But this is likely to change as the space matures. Those of you who are following closely, will know that
Here is a brief summary of how the Blockchain is being leveraged for the real estate industry. Many jurisdictions are already using it, or experimenting with it, for their land registries.
I’ve been writing about Bitcoin sporadically since about 2013. But I really should spend more time getting deeper into this world. Many believe it will underpin the next wave of innovation in the tech space.
Marc drops a number of books throughout the talk and one of them is The Mystery of Capital -- Why Capitalism Succeeds in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. This is a well known book by Hernando De Soto and the big idea is that property ownership and property rights are really the fundamental ingredients in our modern world. People need to know that if they hold title and invest money into something, it's not just going to get taken away by someone. And it is this underlying legal structure that has allowed people to leverage property into wealth.
This is a fascinating observation in its own right, but it also relates to crypto. Hear me out. Chris Dixon makes the argument in the episode that web1 democratized information (anyone can search for stuff), and that web2 democratized publishing (anyone can share stuff through platforms like Twitter or the blogging platform I'm writing on right now). He then goes on to argue that the promise of web3 and crypto is really to democratize ownership of the internet. Anyone can buy crypto tokens.
Why might this be a big deal? Well if property rights in our offline world are a fundamental ingredient to modern society, it seems logical to me that property rights in our digital world(s) might also be equally transformative. And this is precisely one of the things that blockchain technologies enable for the very first time.
Finally, on a mostly unrelated note, I liked Marc's comparison of happiness vs. satisfaction in life. Happiness, he explains, is like getting an ice cream cone on a hot summer day. The first and second feel great, but after that you move on. Satisfaction on the other hand is enduring. It's the feeling you get from working on something really challenging and then finally succeeding. And that's exactly how I feel about real estate development. There are lots of shitty days and lots of grinding. But in the end, I do feel very satisfied.
Crypto tokens are kind of like shares in a company, or at least they can be pretty similar if one wants them to be. Here is an interesting post by Tomasz Tunguz comparing the two. More specifically, he looks at inflation and deflation for both kinds of assets. According to Tomasz's numbers, the average annual change in share count for software companies is about +5% (see above chart). Though there are some notable exceptions, such as Apple, who are aggressively buying back shares and decreasing their counts.
The median inflation rate for crypto tokens, on the other hand, is much higher. Based on the projects that Tomasz chose for his post, the median rate is about 25%. Given the age of most of these crypto tokens, this generally makes sense. Younger companies also tend to have higher inflation rates as they raise outside money and issue new shares to attract talent. But this is likely to change as the space matures. Those of you who are following closely, will know that
Here is a brief summary of how the Blockchain is being leveraged for the real estate industry. Many jurisdictions are already using it, or experimenting with it, for their land registries.
I’ve been writing about Bitcoin sporadically since about 2013. But I really should spend more time getting deeper into this world. Many believe it will underpin the next wave of innovation in the tech space.
But going beyond these inflationary and deflationary numbers, what is more interesting to me is how similar shares and tokens can be, but also how meaningfully different they can be at the same time. They are similar in that they represent some sort of value, they can be bought, sold, loaned and generally used to earn a yield, and they can be used for governance matters, among other things. Where they are the most different is that (1) we don't really know how to value most tokens right now and (2) tokens can have utility.
I am confident that (1) will change as the space evolves. It is still very early days and valuation methodologies will get figured out. (2) will also grow and evolve into things that are unimaginable today, but even right now you have the option of using your crypto tokens to buy things like NFTs. This option should, in theory, have some sort of value attached to it. Though nobody has any clue what these NFTs will be worth ten years from now and so it's pretty easy to poke fun at JPEGs of Apes. But with some new NFT projects seeing over $52 million in trading volume in their first 30 days, my instinct is to learn as opposed to eschew.
Not every crypto token will have enduring value, just like not every share in a company has enduring value. Some are worth a lot and some are worth nothing. At the end of the day, what matters is the underlying business or project or city that you are becoming a part owner of. And I can tell you that lots of exceedingly smart people are working on exactly this for the token space.
But going beyond these inflationary and deflationary numbers, what is more interesting to me is how similar shares and tokens can be, but also how meaningfully different they can be at the same time. They are similar in that they represent some sort of value, they can be bought, sold, loaned and generally used to earn a yield, and they can be used for governance matters, among other things. Where they are the most different is that (1) we don't really know how to value most tokens right now and (2) tokens can have utility.
I am confident that (1) will change as the space evolves. It is still very early days and valuation methodologies will get figured out. (2) will also grow and evolve into things that are unimaginable today, but even right now you have the option of using your crypto tokens to buy things like NFTs. This option should, in theory, have some sort of value attached to it. Though nobody has any clue what these NFTs will be worth ten years from now and so it's pretty easy to poke fun at JPEGs of Apes. But with some new NFT projects seeing over $52 million in trading volume in their first 30 days, my instinct is to learn as opposed to eschew.
Not every crypto token will have enduring value, just like not every share in a company has enduring value. Some are worth a lot and some are worth nothing. At the end of the day, what matters is the underlying business or project or city that you are becoming a part owner of. And I can tell you that lots of exceedingly smart people are working on exactly this for the token space.
