a16z Partner's New Book Excerpt: Read Write Own, a New Ownership Movement
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
a16z Partner's New Book Excerpt: Read Write Own, a New Ownership Movement
In the upcoming "Read Write Own era," anyone can become a stakeholder in the network.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: a16z
Translation: TechFlow
Introduction
In this special weekend edition of the a16z newsletter, we share an adapted excerpt from Chris Dixon’s (a16z general partner) newly released book, Read Write Own: Building the Next Era of the Internet. It primarily discusses the shortcomings of today's internet and the advantages of a new internet powered by blockchain technology.
Main Text
The internet may be the most important invention of the twentieth century. It has transformed the world just as earlier technological revolutions did—such as the printing press, the steam engine, and electricity.
Unlike many other inventions, the internet was not immediately monetized. Its early designers created the network not as a centrally controlled entity but as an open platform that anyone—artists, users, developers, companies, and others—could access equally. At relatively low cost and without needing permission, anyone, anywhere could create and share code, art, writing, music, games, websites, startups, or anything else imaginable.
And whatever you created, you owned. As long as you followed the law, no one could change your rules, charge you more, or take away what you had built. The internet was designed to be permissionless and democratically governed, much like its original networks: email and the web. No participant enjoyed special privileges. Anyone could build on these networks and retain control over their creative and economic destiny.
This freedom and sense of ownership sparked a golden age of creativity and innovation that propelled the internet forward, delivering countless applications that transformed our world and changed how we live, work, and play.
Then everything changed. Starting in the mid-2000s, a small group of companies seized control. The internet became intermediated. The web shifted from permissionless to permissioned.
The good news is: billions of people gained access to amazing technologies, many of which are free to use. The bad news is that a centralized internet operated by a few dominant, ad-based services means fewer software choices for people, weakened data privacy, and diminished control over online lives. For startups, creators, and others, it has become harder to grow on the internet without worrying about centralized platforms changing the rules, taking away their audience, profits, and power.
Although these platforms provide real value, they also control what we see and hear. The most obvious example is "deplatforming," where service providers often eject individuals without transparent due process. People may also be banned without knowing it—a practice known as "shadowbanning." Search and social ranking algorithms can alter lives, make or break businesses, and even influence elections.
An even subtler but equally troubling issue is how these centralized networks restrict startups, extract high rents from creators, and strip rights from users. The negative impacts of these design choices stifle innovation, tax creativity, and concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
This is especially dangerous when you consider that the killer app of the internet is the network itself.
Most things people do online involve networks: both the web and email are networks; social apps are networks; payment apps are networks; markets are networks. Nearly every useful online service is a network. Networks—computing networks of course, but also developer platforms, marketplaces, financial networks, social networks, and various online communities—have always been powerful components of the internet's promise.
Developers, entrepreneurs, and everyday internet users have cultivated and nurtured thousands of networks, unleashing unprecedented waves of creation and coordination. Yet, most enduring networks are now owned and controlled by private corporations.
The problem stems from permission. Today, creators and startups must seek permission from centralized incumbent companies to launch and scale new products. But dominant tech firms use their licensing power to stifle competition, distort markets, and collect fees. And these fees are outrageous: up to 30% for app store payments. That's more than ten times higher than standard rates in the payments industry.
Such exorbitant fees are unheard of in other markets, reflecting just how powerful these companies have become.
These large centralized networks are ruthless, anti-competitive, and abusive of power. They suppress rivals and reduce consumer choice. By cutting off third parties building apps for users, they punish many developers—and ultimately users too—by offering fewer products, fewer options, and less freedom. Today, there is almost no new startup activity happening on top of social networks.
Many people don’t see a problem with the status quo, are content with it, or simply don’t care. They’re satisfied with the comfort provided by these centralized platforms and networks. After all, we live in a rich era. You can connect with anyone (assuming the company owners approve). You can read, watch, and share whatever you like. There are plenty of “free” services to satisfy us—the entry fee being merely our data. As the saying goes, “If it’s free, you’re the product.”
Perhaps you think this trade-off is worth it, or believe there’s no viable alternative to online life. Regardless of your stance, one trend is undeniable: centralized power is turning the internet inward, concentrating authority at the center of what were supposed to be decentralized networks.
This inward turn is suffocating innovation, draining the fun, vitality, and fairness from the internet.
Even those who recognize the problem often assume that the only way to rein in existing giants is through government regulation. That might be part of the solution. But regulation often creates unintended side effects, entrenching the power of incumbents. Larger companies can absorb compliance costs and navigate regulatory complexity, while complex regulations bind and hinder new entrants.
We need a level playing field. To achieve that, we need thoughtful regulation that respects a fundamental truth: startups and technology offer a more effective path to curbing the power of established players. Moreover, short-sighted regulation overlooks how the internet differs from other technologies. Much regulation treats the internet like past communication networks such as telephone or cable TV systems. But these hardware-based legacy networks differ from the software-based internet. The internet certainly relies on physical infrastructure owned by telecom providers. But what drives the behavior of internet services is the code running on personal computers, phones, and servers. This code can be upgraded. With the right features and incentives, new software can spread across the internet.
Because of its malleability, the internet can be reshaped through innovation and market forces. Software is special because it is nearly infinitely expressive. Almost anything you can imagine can be encoded into software; software is the codification of human thought, just like writing, painting, or cave drawings. Computers take these encoded ideas and execute them at lightning speed.
That’s why Steve Jobs once described the computer as a “bicycle for the mind.” It accelerates our capabilities.
Software is so expressive that it should be seen more as an art form than engineering. The plasticity and flexibility of code provide a very rich design space, closer in scope to creative endeavors like sculpture or fiction writing than to engineering tasks like bridge building. Like other art forms, practitioners often develop new genres and movements that fundamentally expand what’s possible.
This is exactly what’s happening today. Just as the internet seemed irreversibly consolidating, a new software movement has emerged—one capable of reimagining the internet. This movement has the potential to restore the early spirit of the internet: giving creators secure property rights, reclaiming ownership and control for users, and breaking the grip of large centralized companies over our lives.
It’s still early days. The internet can still fulfill its original vision. Entrepreneurs, technologists, creators, and users can make it happen. The dream of an open network that fosters creativity and entrepreneurship doesn’t have to die.
This is the beginning of internet innovation, not the end. But there is urgency: the United States has already lost its lead in this new movement.
Read Write Own: A New Movement
To understand how we got here, it helps to be familiar with the broad arc of internet history. First and foremost: power on the internet comes from how networks are designed. Network design—how nodes connect, interact, and form an overall structure—may seem like an obscure technical topic, but it is the single most important factor determining the distribution of rights and money on the internet. Even small, initial design decisions can have profound consequences for control and economics in internet services.
In short, network design determines outcomes.
Until recently, networks fell into two competing types:
-
"Protocol networks," like email and the web, are open systems controlled by communities of software developers and other network stakeholders. These networks are equal, democratic, and permissionless: anyone can freely access them. In these systems, money and power tend to flow toward the edges of the network, incentivizing growth around them.
-
"Corporate networks" are networks owned and controlled by companies rather than communities. They are like walled gardens run by a giant corporation—theme parks controlled by a single large enterprise. Corporate networks run centralized, permissioned services, allowing them to rapidly develop advanced features, attract investment, and accumulate profits for reinvestment in growth. In these systems, money and power flow toward the center—the company owning the network—and away from users and developers at the network’s edge.
I view the history of the internet as evolving through three stages, each defined by a dominant network architecture:
-
In the first stage, the “read era” (roughly 1990–2005), early internet protocol networks democratized information. Anyone could type a few words into a web browser and access information on nearly any topic via websites.
-
In the second stage, the “read-write era” (roughly 2006–2020), corporate networks democratized publishing. Anyone could post publicly via social networks and other services.
-
Now, a new architecture is driving the third stage of the internet. This architecture represents a natural synthesis of the previous two types, and it is democratizing ownership. In the coming “Read Write Own era,” anyone can become a stakeholder in networks, gaining the power and economic benefits previously reserved for a select few affiliated with companies (like shareholders and employees).
This new era promises to counter monopolies and return the internet to its vibrant roots.
People can read and write on the internet—but now, they can also own.
“Blockchain” and “blockchain networks” are the technologies powering this movement. This new movement goes by several names. Some call it “cryptocurrency,” because its foundation is cryptography. Others call it “Web3,” signaling it as the third era of the internet. Whatever name you prefer, the core technology behind blockchains offers unique advantages. Blockchain networks are the most credible and civically minded force against internet monopolies.
You might still wonder: what problem does blockchain solve?
Some will tell you blockchain is a new kind of database that multiple parties can edit, share, and trust. A better description is that blockchain is a new kind of computer—but not one you can put in your pocket or on your desk. It stores information and runs rules encoded in software to manipulate that information.
But the importance of blockchains lies in how they (and the networks built on them) are uniquely controlled.
In traditional computers, hardware controls software. Hardware exists in the physical world and is owned and controlled by an individual or organization. This means, ultimately, one person or group controls both hardware and software. They can change their minds—and thus the software they control—at any time. Blockchains invert the power relationship between hardware and software, just as the internet did before. In blockchains, software controls a set of hardware devices. Software is in charge.
Why does this matter? Because blockchains are the first computers ever capable of enforcing unbreakable rules within software. This enables blockchains to make strong, software-enforced commitments to users. One key commitment involves digital ownership, placing economic and governance power directly in users’ hands. By being able to make strong commitments about future behavior, blockchains can create new kinds of networks.
Thus, blockchain networks solve problems that earlier network architectures could not:
-
They can connect people in social networks while giving users power over corporate interests
-
They can support marketplaces and payment networks that facilitate commerce but with lower fees
-
They enable new forms of media monetization and interoperable, immersive digital worlds
-
They allow AI products to compensate creators fairly
So yes, blockchains create networks—but unlike other network architectures, they produce more desirable outcomes: blockchain networks combine the social benefits of protocol networks with the competitive strengths of corporate networks. Software developers get open access, creators establish direct relationships with audiences at low cost, and users gain valuable economic and governance rights. At the same time, blockchain networks possess the technical and financial capabilities to compete with corporate networks. Thus, blockchains can:
-
Incentivize innovation
-
Reduce the tax burden on creators
-
Allow network contributors to share in decision-making and profits
Asking “What problem does blockchain solve?” is like asking, “Compared to wood, what problem does steel solve?” Blockchain networks are a new kind of building material for constructing a better internet.
Casino vs Computer
New technologies are often controversial, and blockchain is no exception. Many associate blockchain with fraud and get-rich-quick schemes. There is some truth to this, much like past technology-driven financial frenzies—from the railroad boom of the 1830s to the internet bubble of the 1990s. Public discourse focused heavily on IPOs and stock prices, yet alongside the speculation, entrepreneurs and technologists rolled up their sleeves and built products and services that ultimately delivered on the hype.
There are speculators, but there are also builders.
Today, there is a similar cultural divide around blockchain:
-
One group—the “casino culture”—focuses primarily on trading and speculation. At its worst, this gambling mentality leads to disasters like the collapse of cryptocurrency exchange FTX. This group attracts most media attention, shaping the public perception of the entire field.
-
The other group—the “computer culture”—is the more serious of the two, driven by long-term vision. Practitioners in this camp understand that blockchain’s financial aspects are merely a means to a greater end—a way to align incentives toward larger goals. They recognize that the true potential of blockchain lies in building better networks to create a better internet. These people are quieter, receive less attention, but they are the ones who will create lasting impact.
This isn’t to say the computer culture ignores profit. We are a venture capital firm. Much of the tech industry is profit-oriented. The difference is that real innovation takes time to generate financial returns. That’s why most venture funds—including ours—adopt deliberately long holding periods. Creating valuable new technologies can take a decade or more.
The computer culture is long-term; the casino culture is not.
Thus, the battle between computer and casino defines the central narrative of this software movement.
Of course, both optimism and cynicism can be overstated. The dot-com bubble and its subsequent burst reminded many of this. The way to clarity is to separate the essence of the technology from its specific uses and misuses. A hammer can build houses or tear them down. All technologies have the capacity to help or harm; blockchain is no different. The question is: how do we maximize the good and minimize the bad?
The decisions we make now will determine the future of the internet: who builds it, owns it, and uses it; where innovation happens; and what kind of experience everyone will have. Blockchain and the networks it enables unleash the extraordinary power of software as an art form.
This movement has the chance to alter the course of history, reshape humanity’s relationship with the digital world, and reimagine what’s possible. Anyone can participate—whether you're a developer, creator, entrepreneur, or user. This is an opportunity to create the internet we want, not just the one we inherited.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
a16z
