Property rights, whether for real world things or for digital things, are the foundation of developed economies. Because if you don’t feel like your property is going to be safe and secure, why would you bother investing and trying to accumulate assets?

Above is a chart I found, in this great thought piece by Ryan Goldman, showing the direct relationship between “protection against risk of expropriation” and GDP per capita. The more protection, the higher the GDP.

This is, of course, fundamental to the way we live our lives offline. But it is also becoming increasingly important in the way we live our lives online. Because we now have digital assets that people actually care about owning and protecting. You know, like pictures of apes.

This market is only going to continue to grow and the above relationship between rights and economic development will certainly hold true. But I think the big question is whether there will be more distributed and equitable access to opportunities in this emerging world.

I hope that will be the case.

Here's a cogent argument by Dror Poleg about how urban economics can be used to explain the evolution of Web3, and also why it's all a bit of a ponzi scheme, but that when it works, it works.

His argument revolves around ownership and participation. If you own real estate in a city, you could say that you are both a part owner of said city and a participant. You participate by virtue of living and/or doing other things there, but beyond that you also have a vested interest in the city doing well. Because if the city continues to do well and grow, there should be more demand for real estate, including yours, and that likely means your wealth will increase over time.

This same force could be said to apply when existing property owners oppose new development. It restricts supply and increases the value of people's existing "ownership" in a city. It's kind of like being a company and not issuing new shares so as to not dilute your existing shareholders.

This connection between ownership and participation is similarly a hallmark of Web3. In the world of crypto, users buy tokens (some fungible and some non-fungible) and those tokens provide access and rights to various things.

For example, owning tokens might allow you to vote on key decisions affecting the overall organization. And if the organization does well and continues to grow, all token holders should, in theory at least, see their wealth increase. More people will want those same tokens. Ownership and participation.

Web2 companies, on the other hand, do not typically offer this automatic connection between ownership and participation. That is, of course, unless you're a shareholder. If you're just a regular user of a platform like Instagram (which I am), but you don't own any shares in Meta (I do not), then you're only a participant.

If you happen to be a widely followed influencer then you can certainly benefit indirectly from the platform, but you do not benefit from any sort of direct ownership in the organization. Pretty much everything accrues to the house.

In fact, you also don't own your followers, from which you derive your indirect benefit. Not to pick on Meta, but if Meta decided that your content was suddenly inappropriate for the platform, perhaps too salacious, then it could choose to close you down and your indirect benefits.

This, of course, is one of the great promises of crypto and Web3. If you're a part owner and you have some say in the way things are being run, you can maybe avoid this kind of outcome. And if things really aren't working out, one should have the flexibility to take their followers and be extra salacious somewhere else.

We shall see if this is ultimately how Web3 plays out, but the connection between ownership and participation is an interesting one and, if things do end up working out as planned, maybe it can be harnessed to improve our cities. Because we know the problems: inequality, housing supply and affordability, and many others. The system is clearly far from perfect.

Photo by Adrian Schwarz on Unsplash

As I understand it, databases are pretty important to technology companies. Here is an excerpt from a recent post by Albert Wenger talking about why he and his company (Union Square Ventures) believe that web3/crypto is going to unlock new value for our society:

As a first approximation all the big powerful internet companies are really database providers. Facebook is a database of people’s profiles, their friend graphs and their status updates. Paypal is a database of people’s account balances. Amazon is a database of SKUs, payment credentials and purchase histories. Google is a database of web pages and query histories. Of course all of these companies have built a great deal more over time, but operating a database has stayed at the core of why they are powerful. Only they get to decide who has permission to read and write to this database and which parts of it they get access to.

So how will web3 be any better? Well blockchains, at least right now, are poorer performing databases in almost all dimensions, according to Albert. And this is one of the reasons why they're being so quickly dismissed by most people. But they do have one key advantage: permissionless data. No single entity controls a blockchain database. More from Albert:

It is difficult to overstate how big an innovation this is. We went from not being able to do something at all to having a first working version. Again to be clear, I am not saying this will solve all problems. Of course it won’t. And it will even create new problems of its own. Still, permissionless data was a crucial missing piece – its absence resulted in a vast power concentration. As such Web3 can, if properly developed and with the right kind of regulation, provide a meaningful shift in power back to individuals and communities.

All of this said, I do agree with Fred Wilson and others that the web3/crypto enthusiasts on Twitter these days are getting to be a bit much. For obvious reasons, everyone is trying to pump the crypto stuff that they own. And it can certainly feel like shills trying to sell snake oil. But as Fred pointed out today, this isn't the first time that we've been here:

It reminds me of the early days of web2 in 2001/2002/2003, when we started USV. That was also a time of great cynicism. We almost did not get our first fund raised. Nobody was buying the story we were telling. But of course, that story turned out to be true. And I am confident this one will too.

If/when this story does turn out to be true -- and I believe it's a when -- I think we will see it permeate through all sectors of the economy, including how we plan, build, and operate our cities. Of course, this will probably take decades and much of what will happen is unknowable right now. But it's pretty hard to ignore that this was a pivotal year for the crypto space.

Property rights, whether for real world things or for digital things, are the foundation of developed economies. Because if you don’t feel like your property is going to be safe and secure, why would you bother investing and trying to accumulate assets?

Above is a chart I found, in this great thought piece by Ryan Goldman, showing the direct relationship between “protection against risk of expropriation” and GDP per capita. The more protection, the higher the GDP.

This is, of course, fundamental to the way we live our lives offline. But it is also becoming increasingly important in the way we live our lives online. Because we now have digital assets that people actually care about owning and protecting. You know, like pictures of apes.

This market is only going to continue to grow and the above relationship between rights and economic development will certainly hold true. But I think the big question is whether there will be more distributed and equitable access to opportunities in this emerging world.

I hope that will be the case.

Here's a cogent argument by Dror Poleg about how urban economics can be used to explain the evolution of Web3, and also why it's all a bit of a ponzi scheme, but that when it works, it works.

His argument revolves around ownership and participation. If you own real estate in a city, you could say that you are both a part owner of said city and a participant. You participate by virtue of living and/or doing other things there, but beyond that you also have a vested interest in the city doing well. Because if the city continues to do well and grow, there should be more demand for real estate, including yours, and that likely means your wealth will increase over time.

This same force could be said to apply when existing property owners oppose new development. It restricts supply and increases the value of people's existing "ownership" in a city. It's kind of like being a company and not issuing new shares so as to not dilute your existing shareholders.

This connection between ownership and participation is similarly a hallmark of Web3. In the world of crypto, users buy tokens (some fungible and some non-fungible) and those tokens provide access and rights to various things.

For example, owning tokens might allow you to vote on key decisions affecting the overall organization. And if the organization does well and continues to grow, all token holders should, in theory at least, see their wealth increase. More people will want those same tokens. Ownership and participation.

Web2 companies, on the other hand, do not typically offer this automatic connection between ownership and participation. That is, of course, unless you're a shareholder. If you're just a regular user of a platform like Instagram (which I am), but you don't own any shares in Meta (I do not), then you're only a participant.

If you happen to be a widely followed influencer then you can certainly benefit indirectly from the platform, but you do not benefit from any sort of direct ownership in the organization. Pretty much everything accrues to the house.

In fact, you also don't own your followers, from which you derive your indirect benefit. Not to pick on Meta, but if Meta decided that your content was suddenly inappropriate for the platform, perhaps too salacious, then it could choose to close you down and your indirect benefits.

This, of course, is one of the great promises of crypto and Web3. If you're a part owner and you have some say in the way things are being run, you can maybe avoid this kind of outcome. And if things really aren't working out, one should have the flexibility to take their followers and be extra salacious somewhere else.

We shall see if this is ultimately how Web3 plays out, but the connection between ownership and participation is an interesting one and, if things do end up working out as planned, maybe it can be harnessed to improve our cities. Because we know the problems: inequality, housing supply and affordability, and many others. The system is clearly far from perfect.

Photo by Adrian Schwarz on Unsplash

As I understand it, databases are pretty important to technology companies. Here is an excerpt from a recent post by Albert Wenger talking about why he and his company (Union Square Ventures) believe that web3/crypto is going to unlock new value for our society:

As a first approximation all the big powerful internet companies are really database providers. Facebook is a database of people’s profiles, their friend graphs and their status updates. Paypal is a database of people’s account balances. Amazon is a database of SKUs, payment credentials and purchase histories. Google is a database of web pages and query histories. Of course all of these companies have built a great deal more over time, but operating a database has stayed at the core of why they are powerful. Only they get to decide who has permission to read and write to this database and which parts of it they get access to.

So how will web3 be any better? Well blockchains, at least right now, are poorer performing databases in almost all dimensions, according to Albert. And this is one of the reasons why they're being so quickly dismissed by most people. But they do have one key advantage: permissionless data. No single entity controls a blockchain database. More from Albert:

It is difficult to overstate how big an innovation this is. We went from not being able to do something at all to having a first working version. Again to be clear, I am not saying this will solve all problems. Of course it won’t. And it will even create new problems of its own. Still, permissionless data was a crucial missing piece – its absence resulted in a vast power concentration. As such Web3 can, if properly developed and with the right kind of regulation, provide a meaningful shift in power back to individuals and communities.

All of this said, I do agree with Fred Wilson and others that the web3/crypto enthusiasts on Twitter these days are getting to be a bit much. For obvious reasons, everyone is trying to pump the crypto stuff that they own. And it can certainly feel like shills trying to sell snake oil. But as Fred pointed out today, this isn't the first time that we've been here:

It reminds me of the early days of web2 in 2001/2002/2003, when we started USV. That was also a time of great cynicism. We almost did not get our first fund raised. Nobody was buying the story we were telling. But of course, that story turned out to be true. And I am confident this one will too.

If/when this story does turn out to be true -- and I believe it's a when -- I think we will see it permeate through all sectors of the economy, including how we plan, build, and operate our cities. Of course, this will probably take decades and much of what will happen is unknowable right now. But it's pretty hard to ignore that this was a pivotal year for the crypto space.