In most “buyback-and-burn” token models, a network generates income in one currency token and uses the proceeds to buy-back and “burn” its own native token. The intent is to grow token value by reducing its supply as income grows. Buybacks tend to accomplish that goal, but burning affects currency and capital assets in different ways. When it comes to money, reducing the supply does theoretically increase the unit value of currency assets. But when it comes to capital assets like governance tokens, issuance is key to capitalization and burning can get in the way of growing fundamental value.
Proof of Liquidity →
In a standard proof-of-stake system, the more people stake, the more tokens are taken out of circulation. This may seem good for the price of the token, but in many cases insufficient liquidity can get in the way of network growth. So we should look for ways to create a direct, positive relationship between staking and liquidity. One idea is to use Balancer pool tokens as proofs of liquidity that can be staked in place of the network’s token, such that its liquidity grows together with staking.
Read MoreThin Applications →
Big Web companies tend to expand their platforms and monopolize information by locking users into proprietary interfaces. Cryptonetworks, on the other hand, tend to provide single services, and can’t “own” the interface because they don’t control the data. Specialization helps because the more decentralized a network, the harder it is to coordinate a complete suite of services under a single interface like Google, Facebook, or Amazon do. So instead, consumer applications in crypto/Web3 are independently built on top of multiple protocols using what we could call a “cryptoservices architecture” (like microservices, but with sovereign components).
Read MoreHow Much Does a Crypto-Vote Cost? →
In cryptonetworks where a token provides some kind of voting power (e.g. a DAO or proof-of-stake), we might determine the cost of each vote by calculating how much interest it would cost to borrow that token in secondary lending markets for the duration of the vote. This idea highlights the important role of time as a variable in the governance process, because the longer the period one needs to borrow the token to vote, the more expensive it is in terms of interest paid. If this is true, we can use this insight to design stronger governance systems. Protocols can’t control second-market interest rates, but they can influence the “cost of governance” by manipulating how much time it takes to complete the voting process.
Read MoreHow To Think About Value →
“One way to think about ‘value’ is through the lens of costs. The basic principle is that markets allocate value along the lines of costs as they trend to equilibrium. So we can estimate the overall behavior of future value by studying its associated cost structure. To establish this logic we’ll review some fundamental principles of economics (based on equilibrium and MB=MC) and piece apart what we mean by ‘costs’. Then we’ll apply this insight to reason about the nature of value capture and investment returns in crypto.”
Ethereum and The Seven Dwarfs →
“People in the 1960s computer industry would say the market was IBM “and the seven dwarfs” in reference to the other popular computer makers: Burroughs, Control Data, Digital Equipment, RCA, Univac, Honeywell and GE. They all poured fortunes into developing newer and better technologies than IBM, yet none could compete with its massive distribution advantage. Ethereum is the IBM of the smart contract blockchains: it may not be the “best” technology, but it works well enough and has amassed a distribution advantage that will be hard to overcome by its competitors.”
Web vs. Crypto Service Models, Cost Structures and Value Distribution →
“We compare web vs. crypto service models across two dimensions: the production model (from centralized to decentralized) and the data model (from custodial to non-custodial). The more decentralized and non-custodial a service, the more distributed its cost structure. This is important because markets tend to allocate value along the line of costs. So the more we decentralize the cost structure of a service, the more broadly we distribute its value.”
Sovereign Cryptonetworks →
“A state is sovereign when it has supreme authority to govern its territory without interference from a foreign power. Similarly, a cryptonetwork is sovereign when it runs in a way that resists outside influence. But instead of managing the rules and politics of a geography, cryptonetworks use blockchain protocols to govern the production and exchange of information services over digital space. Achieving sovereignty is necessary to fulfill crypto’s ultimate promise of independent online networks that distribute value more broadly across its participants, instead of concentrating it in a particular company or jurisdiction.”
Cryptonetwork Governance as Capital →
“Capital is, in essence, the power to organize the economic resources of a social system, and its worth a function of how much of those resources can be directed to the holder’s benefit. This understanding reveals the inherent value of cryptonetwork governance as capital, and helps us understand tokens with governance rights as new kinds of capital assets.“
Crypto Hedge Funds vs. Venture Funds →
“Cryptonetwork founders, unlike those starting traditional equity businesses, now have to think about the fund structures of their investors. This is because the liquidity of cryptoassets brought the hedge fund model, which carries an active trading bias, to early-stage tech investing, a field historically dominated by venture capital. If you’re raising money for a cryptonetwork, each model has pros and cons depending on your goals, but understanding how they operate is key to making good decisions about how to structure financings.“
Funding Cryptonetworks →
“When we invest, we think in terms of funding teams, and funding networks. Funding teams provides the financial capital to build the service. Funding networks supports growth by capitalizing the whole community. They’re very different kinds of investing, but both are essential to long-term network success.”
The Cryptoeconomic Circle →
“The Cryptoeconomic Circle describes a three-sided market between miners (the supply side), users (the demand side), and investors (the capital side). Miners opt-in to the consensus protocol and coordinate their resources to provide the network’s service in a decentralized manner, users consume the service, and investors facilitate exchange while capitalizing the network.”
Information Technology Market Cycles (A Brief History)
“Information technology evolves in multi-decade cycles of expansion, consolidation and decentralization. Periods of expansion follow the introduction of a new open platform that reduces the production costs of technology as it becomes a shared standard. As production costs fall, new firms come to market leveraging the standard to compete with established incumbents, pushing down prices and margins, and decentralizing existing market powers.”
Read MorePlaceholder Investment Thesis →
We published the Placeholder investment thesis. A lot has happened since we first shared it with our investors in September 2017. It's a "summary" because each section is a subset of a larger body of work and thought which we'll expand via our blog posts as a market develops.
Fat Protocols →
"The relationship between protocols and applications is reversed in the blockchain application stack. Value concentrates at the shared protocol layer and only a fraction of that value is distributed along at the applications layer. It's a stack with 'fat' protocols and 'thin' applications."
The Shared Data Layer of the Blockchain Application Stack →
"Imagine a global database (or a set of global databases) that every application plugs into. That’s the general idea behind the Shared Data Layer. As the name suggests, it’s a data storage layer that is decentralized and open to everyone."
The Blockchain Application Stack →
"Companies like Ebay, Facebook and Uber are very valuable because they benefit tremendously from the network effects that come from keeping all user information in centralized in private silos and taking a cut of all the transactions. Decentralized protocols on top of the blockchain have the potential to undo every single part of the stacks that make these services valuable to consumers and investors."