Multicoin Partner: You don't actually own data—you only own assets
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Multicoin Partner: You don't actually own data—you only own assets
Data can always be infinitely copied, while assets are scarce.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Integrated Kyle e/acc
Translation: TechFlow
I used to believe that data should belong to you, but I no longer think so.
Ownership implies exclusivity, which is especially evident with assets:
a) I have a $5 bill and you don't, so I can spend it while you cannot.
b) I own a piece of art worth $1 million. Instead of lending it to a museum for others to enjoy, I hang it on my wall, meaning only I can appreciate its beauty.
Ownership—i.e., exclusivity—is why cryptocurrency integrates so closely with finance.
Now let's consider what it means to "own your own data." Frankly, I'm not sure what that actually means.
Supporters of data ownership often criticize big tech companies for manipulating us and pushing targeted ads. I disagree with this view.
4/ Running services like Facebook or Google is extremely costly. They need to make money.
The vast majority of people are unwilling to pay for 1) a platform to speak on, and 2) reading what others have to say.
So if you want to provide an inclusive service, you need advertising. And if there are ads, they should be the most relevant ones—which naturally means they must be targeted.
Proponents of data ownership might counter: "The problem is you can't choose different algorithms. Each major platform effectively uses just one algorithm, and they keep changing it."
That criticism has merit, but it's not an argument for "owning your data."
It’s more accurately one of these two arguments:
-
Pass laws mandating algorithmic openness/flexibility/self-hosting (X has taken the first step by open-sourcing its algorithm, but that's not enough).
-
Make data open so third-party developers can build on top of it (e.g., Farcaster).
I’m not the first to propose this solution. In particular, @albertwenger has written extensively about this need in his excellent blog, Continuations.
I think it’s far more likely that legislation will force big tech companies to offer algorithm choice (similar to how you choose a web browser on Windows) than that a new internet will succeed based on many developers building atop shared, open data—because the network effects of existing services are simply too strong.
But even if I'm wrong—and suppose the Farcaster model does succeed—the key point isn't "owning your data," but rather enabling third-party developers to build on top of it.
You might argue this distinction doesn’t really exist—that to allow third-party development, you need to own your data.
I agree—that's technically correct.
But this misses the bigger picture. The crucial issue isn't "ownership," but third-party access (which, as noted, could be achieved under the current model with appropriate legislation).
This isn't to say data contains no sensitive information. Clearly, financial and medical data are sensitive. There are already clear standards allowing patients to export copies of their data from electronic medical record (EMR) systems, giving them personal copies.
"Owning your own data" sounds important, but upon closer examination, the concept turns out to be largely meaningless.
You can only truly own things that are inherently exclusive. Data can always be infinitely copied, whereas assets are scarce.
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
Multicoin Capital
