Tag: albert wenger

• Should more people live together?

  We know that, for a variety of reasons, more and more people are living alone. As of 2018, single-person households represented about 28% of all households in the US. This is up from 13.1% in 1960.

  Here in Canada, single-person households became the predominant household type in 2016 (we’re also at 28%) for the first time in Canada’s 150+ year history. And the numbers are even higher for some European countries. In Finland, Germany, and Norway, more than 4 in 10 households are single-person.

  Part of this has to do with people living longer. In Canada, 42% of people aged 85 or older (and living in a private household) live alone. But part of this is also cultural. Japan has one of the oldest populations in the world, but it doesn’t have the highest percentage of single-person households. Although, the number is relatively high and increasing. It’s nearly 40%.

  Whatever the case may be, you could argue that there appears to be some sort of global trend line toward more people living alone. But here’s an important question: Is this a good thing?

  Albert Wenger recently argued in this blog post that, actually, we need new forms of living together. Whether it’s multigenerational living or coliving with like-minded friends, there are clear benefits to living with other people. You get to share resources. You get elders that can look after kids. And you get company.

  There’s also an opportunity to curate your environment. As Phil Levin puts it on his coliving blog Supernuclear: “If your home is filled with motivated people, you will be more motivated. [And] if your home is filled with funny people, you will laugh more.”

  Albert posits that office conversions (which are obviously in vogue right now) could serve as an opportunity to rethink our built environment around coliving. And while this is certainly true, I’m not sure we need it to happen. There are ways we can live together today, within our existing environment, if we want to.

  The question is: do we?

  2023.09.25

• Tokenized real estate and public databases

  One of the ways that you can turn a traditional real estate company into more of a web3 company is talk about how you’re going to tokenize the ownership of real assets. But what does that even mean and how would it work?

  Here is one example that I recently discovered (but of course there are countless others and I’m not suggesting that you should use their product). Bricknest is a startup that is focused on buying vacation apartments in popular tourist destinations. They then split the ownership into 365 non-fungible tokens that live on the Solana blockchain.

  Each token is intended to correspond to a day. And so if you own 1 token, you own 1/365 of the asset and you get 1 day. You can choose to either use it yourself on this day, or rent it out and get the rental income sent directly to your crypto wallet. If you own all 365 tokens, then it would be similar to you just owning 100% of the asset.

  The obvious question is how is this different from, say, fractional ownership, which can be similarly found in high-demand vacation spots? And the dumb answer is that, well, tokens exist on a blockchain and fractional ownership shares do not. So I guess the real question is whether or not tokens will make this ownership model any different.

  There is a long history of trying to democratize the ownership of real estate. In fact, this was the general idea behind REITs when they were created in the 1960s. So again, we are back to the question of whether tokenization will be any different from what we already have.

  But I think that most people are asking this same question of crypto/web3 in general — why does all of this matter? And a big part of the problem is that crypto is generally hard to explain. One of the best explanations that I have come across is this one here by Albert Wenger.

  Simply put, most internet companies today can be thought of as large privately controlled databases. Instagram, for example, is a database of all of our photos (among other things). But because it’s Instagram’s database, they get to decide what can be done with it. And naturally they are going to do what it takes to maintain their economic moat.

  Blockchains are similarly databases. And right now they’re not particularly good databases. However, the key differences are that (1) they are public, (2) they are not controlled by a single entity, and (3) anyone can read and/or write to them. And so they directly attack the thing that gives many companies today their economic advantage.

  Does this mean that tokenized real estate is the future? Does it make a difference that rental contracts can be programmed into the blockchain so that distributions are automatic? It still feels too early to tell. But I do think that most people are underestimating how disruptive a seemingly small change like this might be.

  2022.04.26

• Is crypto just snake oil?

  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.

  2021.12.29

• The World After Capital

  

  Years ago I wrote about a book that venture capitalist Albert Wenger was writing — in public I would add — called The World After Capital. The public bit is interesting. As he was writing the book over the last ten years or so, he did it in public and published drafts along the way. This allowed him to get feedback, learn things, and revise accordingly. He calls this a “knowledge loop” and it ties in nicely with some of the topics that he covers in the book.

  The first focus of the book is on explaining that capital (which was a constraint of industrialization) is no longer scarce. This isn’t necessarily true everywhere, but he argues that it is true in the developed world. What is instead scarce today is attention. That is our defining constraint as we continue to move into the Knowledge Age. The second focus of his book is on how he thinks we should best respond to these changes, as well as to the limitations of capitalism.

  I haven’t read the book yet (only scanned it), but it’s now in my queue. Normally my queue consists of a stack of partially read books next to my bed. But this one is digital only for the time being. If you’d like to read a digital copy (there’s a downloadable PDF), go here. Apparently there will also be a hard copy available sometime later this year or early next year.

  2021.09.02

• A fundamental and profound innovation

  I setup a new cryptocurrency wallet (offline hardware storage) this evening and then used it to buy brandondonnelly.eth using ENS (Ethereum Name Service). I don’t know what the hell I’m going to use it for, yet, but I own brandondonnelly.com. So I figured I should grab the decentralized blockchain version of my name as well. Perhaps at some point in the future I’ll be glad I did.

  I plan to buy a bunch of other .eth domains in the near future as well. The costs are similar to registering a traditional domain.

  Part of the reason why I’m doing all of this because I’ve decided that it’s time to do a deep dive and better understand the possibilities of the blockchain (a decentralized vs. centralized internet). I’ve been following for a number of years, but it has been pretty surface level. It’s time to get serious. And I must say that it felt pretty cool to use my new hardware wallet to buy something with ETH.

  Overall, things started to really click for me when I saw the digital economy that was emerging with Ethereum (applications, NFTs, DeFi, etc.). Instead of just digital money, I could now see clear use cases and demand drivers for the cryptocurrency. Again, I used ETH to buy brandondonnelly.eth, which means I first had to be an owner of ETH.

  If you’re looking to better understand the possibilities of a decentralized internet — specifically why non fungible tokens are bad ass — check out this blog post by Albert Wenger. He uses the example of the Mona Lisa sitting in the Louvre to explain why NFTs are not a fad and, instead, a “fundamental and profound innovation.”

  2021.06.17

• Apple and Google are building a voluntary contact-tracing network for COVID-19

  Venture capitalist Albert Wenger wrote on his blog today that the road back from COVID-19 could start — as early as May — provided we’re able to get our act together around three essential things: masks, tests, and tracing for everyone. We have all been talking about the importance of these things over the last few weeks, but I think it’s worth mentioning just how quickly some of this is starting to happen.

  Both Apple and Google have announced that they are building a voluntary contact-tracing network. By May, they hope to release a set of APIs that other software developers will be able to build on top of. Bluetooth will be what is used to detect when humans are in close proximity to each other. Eventually, both companies plan to integrate contact tracing right into their operating systems.

  Here’s how it might work:

  

  Of course, we are also seeing new startups emerge, like this one here called Coronatrace.

  Similar to what Apple and Google have in mind, the app will be a voluntary contact-tracing network. By using it, your phone will begin to log how you move about, something that is already happening today with many of the apps we already use. Should someone test positive for COVID-19 (they would need to update their health status within the app), it would then immediately notify the network and anyone who might have crossed paths with them.

  

  Obviously it would be far better to simply have a vaccine. But the experts are saying that will take some time — 12 to 18 months? And in the interim, we’re going to need to get the global economy back up and running. Seeing solutions like these being developed makes me hopeful we’ll be able to do that sooner rather than later.

  2020.04.10

• Hmm…architecture and basic income

  

  Albert Wenger recently published a post on his blog about architecture and basic income. Albert is a venture capitalist and is currently working on a book called World After Capital, which I have mentioned before on this blog. He is also an advocate of basic income as a solution to the growing inequality that the modern economy seems to be producing.

  In this latest post he wades into the world of architecture with two assertions that I would like to respond to today. The first is that with basic income the current trend of everyone piling up in large cities will end. We will decentralize in search of cheaper land on the outskirts of cities. And the second is that affordable housing could perhaps be produced with a more open source approach to architectural drawings and new construction.

  In terms of his first point, I’m not entirely clear why someone earning a basic income would suddenly decentralize. In the comments there is some discussion about how retirees, on a fixed income, often move outward in search of more affordable housing. I understand that phenomenon, but I am not convinced in this scenario. 

  There has been lots of talk about the demise of cities because of new technologies and other factors. But agglomeration economies have proved, again and again, to be a powerful centralizing force. Let’s also not forget about the environmental impacts of large scale decentralization, which would only be partially mitigated by the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. 

  Secondly, you can build a house without an architect. The issue isn’t that good bathroom details are hard to come by. Some of the bigger issues are likely the availability of land (decentralization, I guess, is supposed to solve this); construction costs (it’s a highly inefficient process that generates copious amounts of waste); and the immense regulatory burdens imposed on new construction (process, time, and costs).

  All of this stemmed from a visit that Albert did with a group of architecture students who are researching the relationship between architecture and basic income. I would be very curious to see what they produce.

  What are your thoughts?

  Photo by Mathyas Kurmann on Unsplash

  2018.03.03

• Random thoughts about climate change

  

  One of the things that I have been wondering lately with all of the devastation caused by hurricanes Harvey and Irma is if we need to be viewing these catastrophic incidents as the result of climate change or if we’re being too quick to apply the availability heuristic.

  The latter being: “Look at all of these horrible hurricanes. Climate change must really be here and happening right now.”

  Albert Wenger is covering this topic on his blog right now through his “Uncertainty Wednesday” series and has also written similar posts in the past. The current series is still ongoing, but a few things stood out to me as I was going through the archives. I’ll mention 3 of them today.

  Firstly, it’s important to understand the difference between weather and climate. Weather is what’s happening at any given moment. Climate, on the other hand, is the statistics of weather. Albert proposes the following definition for climate, which I like:

  “Climate is the probability distribution of possible weather events.”

  Secondly, the data is clear: We have gotten far better at forecasting weather over the years. Accuracy has greatly improved. 

  But we’re still pretty bad at it, particularly over longer periods of time. According this graph, we’re about 97.5% accurate for 3 day forecasts, but only about 40% accurate for 10 day forecasts. So by “longer periods of time”, I’m really talking about forecasts that go out beyond one week. That’s not very far into the future.

  Thirdly, Albert has this post from last year where he talks about the flooding we saw on the U.S. east coast and also the slowing down of the Gulf Stream. 

  This is fascinating, and also frightening, because the Gulf Stream is a vital ocean current. Among other things, it warms western and northern Europe – likely making it warmer than it otherwise would be – and, according to some models, it lowers the sea level along the U.S. east coast by as much as 3 feet. 

  The frightening part is that as the Gulf Stream slows it also stops pulling away the same amount of water from the coast, which is arguably why mean sea level is increasing.

  I say “arguably”, but the data clearly suggests an acceleration in the rate of rise. Here are two charts that Albert prepared. And there’s more: The U.S. east coast may also have it worse in terms of sea level rise precisely because of this phenomenon.

  This is an interesting and, of course, important topic. This post obviously doesn’t do it justice, but I am trying to learn as much as I can. Writing always helps with that.

  Photo by Joseph Barrientos on Unsplash

  2017.09.22

• Motivation and coordination

  Albert Wenger of Union Square Ventures recently gave a talk at the 2017 Blockstack Summit about “Decentralization and the Knowledge Age.”

  He starts by talking about motivation and coordination.

  The state, he argues, is good at coordination, but not so good at motivation. The market, on the other hand, is good at motivation, but not so good at coordination. Money and self-interest are powerful incentives.

  He then talks about how networks have improved the market, the firm, and the state. When the cost of sharing information drops, everything gets better.

  But there are downsides to networks. For one, they form monopolies. Consider Facebook in social. Google in search. Amazon in ecommerce.

  They also create environments ripe for censorship and “algorithmic abuse.” Everything you see in your feeds is optimized to make you respond and/or feel a certain way. The line between delivering you relevant content and deliberate manipulation is perhaps a fine one.

  So what’s the solution? Decentralized blockchain networks are one exciting possibility. But they also have their own limits and drawbacks. Albert touches on those in his talk.

  The video is about 24 minutes. If you can’t see it below, click here.

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgQT874KHuw?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

  2017.08.15

• The “R” word

  

  Albert Wenger recently penned an interesting post about the “R” word.

  It’s about health insurance and why redistribution is a toxic word in U.S. politics, but also why much of what we do as a society – from public roads to insurance – is actually about redistribution. What I like about the post is that he cuts through a lot of the noise and gets right at the crux of things.

  Here’s part of his conclusion:

  So what should you take away from this? There always is some element of redistribution to insurance – at a minimum ex post and generally also ex ante. The “why should I (usually some healthy person) pay for x (usually some payment for someone from a different demographic)” objection to health insurance is about redistribution. We should acknowledge this openly and not pretend that it is otherwise, because then we can move forward and say “you should, because that is your contribution to how our society works.”

  The point of his post, which he reiterates in the comment section, is that “insurance is a commons more than it is a market.” Too much individual choice – for instance, rich people opting out because they don’t need it – actually weakens the system.

  But you should really read his entire post. It’s good.

  Photo by Jamie Street on Unsplash

  2017.06.27