Read Write Own: Building the Next Era of the Internet

by Chris Dixon

A potent exploration of the power of blockchains to reshape the future of the internet—and how that affects us all—from influential technology entrepreneur and startup investor Chris Dixon

The internet of today is a far cry from its early promise of a decentralized, democratic network of innovation, connection, and freedom. In the past decade, it has fallen almost entirely under the control of a very small group of companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook. In Read Write Own, tech visionary Chris Dixon argues that the dream of an open network for fostering creativity and entrepreneurship doesn’t have to die and can, in fact, be saved with blockchain networks. He separates this movement, which aims to provide a solid foundation for everything from social networks to artificial intelligence to virtual worlds, from cryptocurrency speculation —a distinction he calls “the computer vs. the casino.”
 
With lucid and compelling prose— drawing from a 25-year career in the software industry—Dixon shows how the internet has undergone three distinct eras, bringing us to the critical moment we’re in today. The first was the “read” era, in which early networks democratized information. In the “read-write” era, corporate networks democratized publishing. We are now in the midst of the “read-write-own” era, sometimes called web3, in which blockchain networks are granting power and economic benefits to communities of users, not just corporations.
 
Read Write Own is a must-read for anyone—internet users, business leaders, creators, entrepreneurs—who wants to understand where we’ve been and where we’re going. It provides a vision for a better internet and a playbook to navigate and build the future.

Genres: Business, Technology, Nonfiction, Science, Economics, History, Internet

320 pages, Hardcover

Published January 30, 2024

About the author

Librarian Note:
There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Chris Dixon is a general partner at the storied venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, which he joined in 2013. He has invested there in Oculus (later acquired by Facebook), Coinbase, and other companies. He also placed early bets on Kickstarter, Pinterest, Stack Overflow, and Stripe, all of which have products in wide use today. Dixon founded and leads a16z crypto, a division of the firm that he has grown from $300 million in 2018 to over $7 billion of committed capital dedicated to investing in crypto and web3 technologies. In 2022, he was ranked #1 on the Forbes Midas List of the world’s best venture capital investors. Dixon has a bachelor of arts and a master’s degree in philosophy from Columbia University and an MBA from Harvard Business School, and has founded two startups (acquired by McAfee and eBay). He grew up in Ohio and lives in California.
Penguin Random House

Reviews

[Blake · Rating 1 out of 5]

Watch out for the sock puppet accounts reviewing this positively. Molly White has the definitive review: https://www.citationneeded.news/revie...

Note that this is not a _real_ NYT Best Seller, they "daggered" it: https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7emk...

[Sebastian Gebski · Rating 1 out of 5]

What is going on here?! This book is clearly a joke, a satire, a prank, ... but it isn't ;( And that's the worst part of it.

It doesn't start that bad. There's a good intro on network effects & a promising start on protocol-based decentralization. Additionally, there are good comments on what's wrong (some of the things) with centralized distributed systems. But the deeper you get into, the more "WTF" moments you approach & the more jaw-dropping they get.

Basically, this is a book written by a zealous blockchain worshipper. He sees no drawbacks, no cons, no negative aspects. He still lives in a world where NFT does not just make ANY sense - they are actually a great solution. This guy doesn't understand that the technology that hasn't solved its most fundamental problem (1:1 reliable connection between off-the-chain & on-the-chain asset) CAN'T work - CAN'T make any sense. He's still bubbling about NFTs being an art and requiring some sort of an understanding of this form of art. Seriously, at this point, you could call it a scam - it's pure deception.

Blockchains are obviously flawless. Even within the DeFi community, there are mixed opinions, e.g., on why PoS can't replace PoW (because it can lead to centralization). For Dixon, there are no issue: we're clearly facing perfection here! He's advocating for all the discredited ideas that HAVEN'T worked in practice: like DAO. He's talking about transparency and asking laymen to read code ... Seriously ... This book could have tricked someone 3-4 years ago. But not now. Now it's just a parody, a travesty, a clear waste of time written by a person who - SURPRISINGLY - most likely doesn't even understand what he's writing about!

If you read my reviews, you've probably figured it out: I do restrain (as much as possible) from criticizing the authors. I assume their good intentions; I assume they've done their best, and I keep hoping someone could like the book more than I did. But in this case I'll make the exception:
- this book is cynical
- this book is pure bullshit
- this book is wishful thinking, not just not based on facts - it's contrary to the known facts

Avoid at all costs.

[Adolfo Zavala · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Read Write Own" is a must-read for anyone even remotely interested in the future of how we create, share, and own content in the digital age. This book is an absolute gem that grabs you from the first page and doesn’t let go. It is a mind-blowing journey through the realm of technology and digital ownership, presented in an easy-to-understand way. It dives into complex blockchain, cryptocurrency, and creator economy concepts, but in such a digestible manner that even my 10 year old could get it and, what’s more, find it fascinating!

[Rick Wilson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Clown book for clown people.

Extremely mediocre blockchain propaganda.

Has really no interesting points or novel ideas. It’s just a bad rehash of what people were repeating glassy eyed at blockchain conferences in 2021/2022.

I’m gonna teach you something, because this book is almost entirely devoid of actual content. Every time someone touts the magic of “decentralization,” look to see how much they expect to make in transaction fees for the “service” of decentralizing whatever the fuck they’re talking about. OpenSea talked fervently about NFT and decentralizing art or fractional monkey pics while charging 2.5% every time someone engaged in this supposedly magical exchange. If these things are so much easier and better, why do they charge loan shark prices? EVERY time these freaking things pop up the transaction costs are miniscule, and the fees are usurious. Decentralization of the type Chris talks of is shorthand for “we don’t like the fact that other people are making money when these transactions happen so we’ve invented a new way for you to pay us instead of them.”

And go buy the monkey pics if you like the monkey pics. But don’t try to sell me some reinvention of the business that visa and Mastercard have run for years and claim that it’s some sort of novel technology. You’re literally just extracting rent with more steps.


Nothing Chris says blockchain does in this book is special to blockchain. All the magical transparency benefits can be done with code that you post on GitHub and let people look through. This is literally a concentrated dose of the worst empty hype about “reinventing the Internet with Web3“ out there, but possibly worse because at least when I come across this drivel on Twitter I can block them.

The majority of the use cases in this book would actually make the general user experience worse. I think blockchain will be a technology that is used in the future. And I’m long-term for it. Hell I helped build a protocol and enjoyed my time around the space. But I think this future is far off and exists despite the fact that clowns like Chris are common, and make tons of empty promises about the technology today.

[Kim Pallister · Rating 1 out of 5]

I thought someone with Dixon's background (2x tech startup founder, now a partner at A16z) would be able to get past the hand-waving on blockchain and to the specifics of what can/can't work and why. Instead it was just handwaving on a grander scale.

The book starts in a good place, pointing out the negatives that have come from the increasing aggregate power from "corporate networks" (aka Big Tech, and specifically the Big Tech network companies like Facebook, google, apple, etc). He never quite gets around to explaining how blockchains and 'web 3' will solve this, other than just claiming that they will. Additionally, its hard to believe the rhetoric about how decentralized systems will prevent aggregation of power, when coming from a VC, who wouldn't be investing in such companies if there wasn't the opportunity for just such an aggregation to take place in new hands.

When addressing criticisms of blockchains, he simply handwaves, claims they are wrong, and doesn't actually explain why.

In the latter part of the book, he calls out a number of use cases for blockchains. The ones around gaming (my domain of expertise) are flawed in numerous ways, and I suspect the others are similarly flawed.

I'm open to, and have been looking for, an optimistic and detailed deep dive on the potential of blockchain tech. This wasn't it.

[Walter Ullon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very clear and insightful. If read with an open mind, it will effectively put every-day technologies you take for granted in a new light. It lies next to select company in my bookshelf, alongside The Bitcoin Standard by Ammous (changed my understanding of Bitcoin, in particular, and money/economics, in general), The Cold Start Problem by Chen (changed my understanding of network effects), and Zero to One by Thiel (changed how I see globalization, monopolies, and the role of startups), to name a few. It's that good.

The premise of the book is that network design is destiny.
In essence, how a network is built and the how information flows between nodes have outsized implications regarding which activities are allowed to take place in the network, the creation and disbursement of incentives, which new functions are added, network governance, and more importantly, how much value/profit is captured.

Network topology is thus the single, most accurate predictor of how the network will mature once it reaches critical mass. To drive home this important concept of network destiny, the author revisits the still unfolding history of the internet in three eras, each precipitated by their dominant network catalysts.

The “Read Era” of the internet was brought about by Protocol Networks, like the Web and Email. They democratized reading, as in anyone with a connection could access content published by people and organizations with the resources and know-how to do so. These networks were open, permissionless, and egalitarian. They allowed anyone to build on top of them and create value - mostly by solving important problems such as dealing with spam or making web pages easier to search. Profits flowed to the edges of the network where people adding value to the network could rightfully claim the spoils and continue building.

The “Read-Write Era” was the result of the rise of Corporate Networks. They democratized publishing. Anyone with access to a computer could now write blogs with ease, as well as post their “status”, rants, etc. Whereas Protocol networks are open and enriched by a thriving community of developers who invest their free time making it better, Corporate network are “gated” and private. Their control is centralized; all power resides at the center, and all profits flow to the owners of the network and away from the creators (at the edges).

The third era is the “Read-Write-Own Era”, a product of the much maligned and misunderstood Blockchain Networks. These network combine the best parts of the previous two, while fixing the problems that plague both of them. They are open, community owned, egalitarian, decentralized, and self-sustaining. These networks have the power to encode contracts that programmatically enshrine and enforce the “commitments” made to the users of the network at the time of their creation. These are immutable (unless the community votes change them), and predictable (since these commitments are triggered programmatically and are “set in stone”, one can rest assured that no single authority will be able to change terms and conditions whenever it suits them, as Corporate networks can).

And because in properly designed blockchains the disbursement of incentives are built in such a way that it rewards creators, contributors, and participants, there is no need to thirst for profits by relying on the venture capital model that is the flywheel of Corporate Networks. Blockchains can be self-sustaining.

Dixon is a brilliant tech writer, and his use of analogies to explain the difference between decentralized networks such as Blockchains and their nemesis-Corporate networks-illustrate this: cities vs. theme parks.

Blockchains (and Protocol networks, to great extent), he explains, are like great cities. They enjoy a rich combination of public and private spaces that create a thriving community around them. The public parks attract visitors, the public roads and sidewalks allow people to move about freely and discover new and interesting (but private) places such as stores, restaurants, theaters, etc. All this leads to an exchange of resources that allow for re-investment in both public and private works, and so on. Land grants (tokens) incentivize developers to create new spaces or improve existing ones. The community has a say in the form of votes.

In contrast, Corporate networks are like theme parks. Once you go past their gates they control the entire experience from beginning to end. They decide how much to charge, what to build, who can enter and how long they stay. They also decide how much profit flows to the artists and contributors that provide the content and keep the place running. They own all intellectual property. What’s more, all decisions are made by a central authority (namely a CEO or a board) and there is no guarantee that their commitments will remain intact - they change their terms and commitments frequently in response to economic pressures.

I guess theme parks can be nice and all, but I don't know who would like to live in them 24/7 (actually, there's a town in Florida called "Celebration" which was created by the Walt Disney Corporation - the reviews are not stellar). Also, wasn't Jurassic Park a theme park too at some point? And look at what happened... I for one, don't enjoy Zuckersaurus rex running around moving fast and breaking things...



Blockchain networks will allow us to build more equitable virtual spaces where ownership rights are enshrined and protected. Where the power and governance resides with the communities that built and depend on them, and where the possibilities for what can be created are endless. If you can code it, you can create it! Corporate networks and their overlords need not rule the future of the internet.

I will stop here cause I cannot continue this review without diminishing the author’s own work by fumbling along with his arguments any further. Instead, I leave you with his parting words:

The future of the internet is us-you and me.
The internet is, increasingly, where we live our lives, and it overlaps more and more with the so-called real world.
Think about how much of your life you live online, how much of your identity resides there, how much you interact with friends whom you've developed relationships with through the medium of the internet.
Whom do you want in control of that world?*

[Gayla Bassham · Rating 1 out of 5]

I experienced this book as an infuriating hate-read, in the much the same way I experience watching clips of Trump speeches. I do not have time to list all the problems with the book so I'm going to link to Dave Karpf's review and be done with it: https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/read...

[Murtaza · Rating 4 out of 5]

More reasonable and levelheaded than the average technology book. Paradoxically increased my skepticism of the subject.

[CatReader · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chris Dixon is an American technology entrepreneur. I checked out this book as I gravitate toward retrospective and speculative books about the future of technology, and as someone old enough to have experienced the internet eras that Dixon delineates in the introduction (or at least the "read" era from the '90s through mid '00s, the "read-write" era starting from the mid '00s that I'd argue we're still in). After the first few chapters, it became obvious that the rest of this book would be all about blockchain and cryptocurrency -- maybe the giant red block on the cover should have been a hint when the title and subtitle didn't make it obvious. I remain skeptical on both of those ideas, but to each their own.

Further reading: blockchain and crypto
Blockchain: The Next Everything by Stephen Williams
Cryptomania: Hype, Hope, and the Fall of FTX's Billion-Dollar Fintech Empire by Andrew Chow

My statistics:
Book 30 for 2025
Book 1956 cumulatively

[Benjamin Pierce · Rating 5 out of 5]

A contender for one of the best books of 2024 already -- I knew plenty about the web3 grift before reading this; however, this book opened my eyes to the possible utility of blockchain and economics of blockchain and why creators desperately need this. Whether any of that utility can ever be achieved remains to be seen, but thanks to this book I'm no longer firmly in the "everything to do with crypto is a scam" camp.

[Christian · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a surprisingly useless book. There are numerous articles published on A16Z’s blog that are better written and cited, and more informative than this book. And yes I cannot get past how the author criticizes these large corporate platforms without acknowledging his own firm’s outsized role in funding them. The book is stuck in the middle: it’s about blockchain but not written by a technologist. It’s a book about the failure of previous attempts at open web written by a venture capitalist. His opinions on technological trends are too skewed to be useful and his claims about blockchain’s promise are too unsubstantiated to be useful. I often say that books like these should just be blogs, but in this case I wish other A16Z posts became books.

[Mark Bending · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thank you for the Goodreads giveaway. I enjoyed reading this book it was informative, interesting, and easy to understand. it's a great book for people in the industry or someone that just wants to expand their knowledge.

[Dominik Pajor · Rating 4 out of 5]

I decided to read this book after seeing Chris Dixon speak and found many of his theories in line with trends I’ve noticed over the past few years. The book provided fantastic insight into the “next era of the internet” and its future through decentralized networks. An overview of the history of the internet and more specifically protocol networks, from the perspective of someone that was actually there, served as a strong basis for his arguments. Highly recommend for anyone interested in the inevitable economic shift in digital media, or if you’re just interested in internet history and where we might be going in the next few years or decades.

[Mike Degen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book completely shifted my perspective on the possibilities for block chain technologies

[Hubert RvR · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's a must read for anyone in tech. My key takeaways below:
- corporate networks - metcalfe law; value is square of the # of nodes- incremental additions down the road mean less to the network. corp networks favour cooperation early and competition late. Attract-extract cycle
- platform-app feedback loop: better apps improve the value of the platform and vice versa
- what smartest people so on the weekends is what most would do in ten years
- computer is a state machine: can store info (state) and has a function that allows to modify state. As a language nouns can be perceived as state and verbs modifiers of state
- blockchains contained signed / authenticated entries, not encrypted ones
- corporate networks are about perimeter security (protecting the access), in blockchains there is no login just the private key that is used to sign transactions
- democracy, transparency and ability to make strong commitments about the future are key properties of blockchain
- tokens are data structures that convey more message about users, they encapsulate ownership
- exponential growth comes from stronger forces than the compounding effect, the network effects and platform app feedback loops
- blockchain resembles urban planning at its best, mix between centralized decisioning/rule setting and private initiative. Corporate networks like theme-parks, experience can be great, but no one wants to live in one.
- blockchain networks go after the underbelly of corporate networks - high take rates
- % of revenue pricing when the network effects accrue in a central entity
- commoditizing a tech layer is like squeezing a baloon - the profit volume is constant it just moves to different layers of the stack
- take rates are the stick, token incentives are the carrot - network design is about balancing and properly setting the faucets and the sinks
- governance of network is just like with politics
- securities are about a centralized control, commodities like gold of bitcoin have achieved sufficient decentralization, hence should be regulated by commodities laws
- don’t be evil (google’s motto, corporate network) vs. Can’t be evil (blockchain network)

[Ahmed Salem · Rating 4 out of 5]

My brain created that solid association between CryptoCurrency and Blockchain. The first is an implementation of the second which is a technology.

And because my journey with that implementation started with the great hope then later faded because of all manipulation we can see in how the Bitcoin (and all other Cryptos) have turned into a Goal, not a tool.

However, Author is here with this book to restore that faith again into the technology that could help with our problem we are facing now with the big Social media tycoons.

The book essentially traces the history of the internet through three eras - "Read" (early web), "Write" (social media), and "Own" (blockchain/web3).

Dixon proposes that blockchain technology could enable a more decentralized internet where users have greater control and ownership of their digital assets and content, in contrast to the current model where large tech platforms control most of the digital infrastructure and value.

[Nicolas · Rating 1 out of 5]

Some 5 stars ratings should either come :
- from employees at start ups who received free copies from their investor a16z where the writer Chris Dixon is partner
- people who have never heard about blockchain, Web 3.0 and for who eventually this book would be the equivalent of “Web 3.0 for dummies”
I had such a hard time finishing this book, from unsubstantiated to obvious statements, nothing novel, barely forward looking. From a general partner at one of the largest VC in the world, I was definitely expecting more thought provoking topics or disruptive ideas.
An humbling reminder that investing in tech and building in tech are two different things and that indeed you should remember the latter.

[Zachary Holecek · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book does a great job detailing where the internet went wrong, and explaining why blockchain technologies have potentially important and novel use cases.

However, it’s somewhat repetitive, and not everything is explored in detail - this book will likely raise more questions than answers. For example, if profits are large enough, corporations should compete take rates down to sustainable rates in the long run - no blockchain needed?

[Kuang Ting · Rating 5 out of 5]

1995年創立時適逢網路開始普及之際，當年使用者連上網路只能讀取陽春的網頁，最初連橫幅廣告都尚未出現，使用者對於能夠快速搜尋資訊嘖嘖稱奇。

這時候的使用者只有少數一群先行者，大夥對於網路的未來滿懷憧憬，此時的網路結構是協定網路，它是開源又屬於社群的，全球資訊網和電子郵件這些最重要的協定都是網路最早期的發明，當時所有人引頸期盼，打造一個屬於所有人的internet。網路有機會打造一個人人平等的新時代，經歷過20世紀的風風雨雨後，以網路迎接千禧年的到來，人類文明似乎即將跨入新的紀元。這個時期被稱為Web 1.0，使用者只有讀取(read)的功能。

電子商務在2000年以後蓬勃發展，部落格也在此時開始興起，讓每個使用者都有一片小天地，在網路上盡情書寫。2004年臉書創立，2005年Youtube上線，讓文字和影音創作的門檻大幅降低，網路自此進入Web 2.0，使用者擁有讀取與寫作(write)的能力。2007年iPhone讓人開始低頭滑移動裝置，網路藉此徹底滲透21世紀人類的生活，從物理世界到虛擬空間，我們已經離不開網路，所有事物都若有似無的被聯繫在一起。

科技究竟是好是壞? 聰明的人懂得掌握每一次世代交替的機會，善用網路對個體的賦權，發言權不再由傳統的媒體壟斷，每個人都能夠隨心所欲的發言，2010年代內容創作百花齊放，網紅產業取代演藝圈，素人成為網路使用者的焦點，進而打造一整個圍繞網路的生態系，包含社群媒體行銷、社群經營等各種新興職業。

去中心化是網路推動的其中一個浪潮，現在幾乎所有人都想經營自媒體成為影��者，粉絲達到一定人數以後就有機會帶貨和業配。傳統媒體仰賴資訊的稀缺性，廠商需要購買廣告才能觸及消費者，網路打破了資訊傳遞的壁壘，廠商可以直接面向消費者，藉由贊助優質創作者的方式，相輔相成，讓創作者獲得收入來源，優質商品也能在網紅個人魅力的加持下，精準分享給最理想的客群。

Web 1.0是由社群推動建立的，但隨著網路逐漸成熟，Web 2.0漸漸成為「企業網路」，企業網路指由公司創設的網路空間，跟全球資訊網的開放性不同，企業網路是封閉的，它可以只由一間公司創建，我們如今熟悉的網路空間，幾乎都是企業網路，例如FB、IG都是Meta的品牌；抖音和小紅書都是中國的企業所掌握；就連反射動作「搜索」都由Google所壟斷，一間公司佔據80%以上的搜索市場。企業網路的優勢顯而易見，企業有資金延攬頂級人才，快速的迭代商品，讓網路的使用難度顯著下降，使用成本也快速降低。今天大部分的網路服務幾乎都”免費”，科技公司扮演重要的角色，不過當然有時候免費的最貴，我們也付出了許多代價，從侵犯隱私到精神負擔，相信你我都心有戚戚焉~

企業網路大幅提升使用者體驗，使UI/UX成為顯學，搭配心理���的設計原理，使用者的黏著度也大幅上升，如今全球使用者每天花費數小時泡在廣大無垠的網海中，就連工作幾乎也要保持隨時在線。Web 2.0完成了30年前的願景，全世界都緊密連在一起。這是一個很偉大的成就，但今天網路的樣貌和結構卻跟當初設想的不太相同。雖然企業網路確實對網路空間做出巨大的貢獻，可是當一個空間由少數幾個人所把持，群體就必須聽從掌權者的發號司令。

在現實世界裡，我們崇尚自由民主，對獨裁政府感到反感，體驗過自由的人都無法再忍受獨裁者的飛揚跋扈，20世紀的動盪都是由獨裁或極權政權所引起，少數幾個人的意志就能導致文明的衝突與毀滅。21世紀是虛擬世代，網路空間的一切都會直接影響物理世界的模樣。同樣的類比，今天的企業網路由幾間科技巨頭所掌控，雖然不至於直接引發衝突，但企業的本質是追逐利潤，所以為了達成目的，公司和投資人的利益永遠會高於使用者權益，就算企業的初衷是良善的，人類歷史數千年，在在顯示經濟上的誘因跟理想往往對立，市場機制很現實，若企業不採取某些行為，可能就會被競爭者取而代之，因此使用者利益儘管重要，在必要時還是得讓位於企業利益。

書中揭露一個數字值得大家參考，前五大社群媒體公司FB、IG、X(前推特)、TikTok、Youtube年營收約1,500億美元，但分享給創作者的金額只有大概200億，其中大部分還是Youtube所貢獻，其他四間幾乎可忽略不計，YT最大方，創作者的抽成可達45%，相較之下其他平台抽成率可高達99%! 他們雖然提供網路時代的基礎建設，但在物理世界中基礎建設是公共財，使用費不會、也不該那麼昂貴。目前有些科技新創嘗試新的商業模式，例如近兩三年滿流行的電子報平台Substack就試著回歸網路的初心，平台抽成10%，較能讓創作者享受果實。本書做了一個假設，如果前五大社群公司抽成也降為10%，他們的收入就會降為150億，額外的1,150億除以美國平均年薪59,000美元，相當於近200萬個全職的就業機會。

順便穿插一個自己的省思，這個數據其實發人深省，因為現在要從傳統企業組織獲得穩定收入越來越困難，只好轉由這種副業和新型態的收入來源，弔詭的是，社群媒體上獲得最多人追蹤的意見領袖/教練，很多都在教人怎麼在職場上生存，或者如何找到優質工作，進入理想企業。另一類人則是不斷吐槽企業的弊病，鼓吹裸辭去數位游牧。加上AI真的已經在取代工作機會，文本都成真了，超級可怕!! 穩定的工作只會越來越少。如果有一份安穩，環境良好的工作，真的要心存感激，並時時提醒自己要持續自我提升才行。當人真的太累了，難怪現在都不婚不生><

這裡不是要去討論意識形態和資源分配正義這種議題，而是很單純去反思網路的資源確實高度集中，創作者嘔心瀝血的作品讓平台快速成長，卻無法獲得對應的報酬，累積到一定知名度以後，平台還可以依照自己的利益，去重新調整演算法或限流，若創作者希望維持觸及率，甚至得自掏腰包買廣告。鑑往知來，所有的科技公司在最草創時期都曾為了打造美好世界的夢想而登高一呼，早期創作者蜂擁而至，為平台凝聚人氣，結果等到時機成熟，企業就會開始收割，本書譯者很有創意將其翻為「韭菜循環」，我們在平台上的參與，最終都被當成韭菜收割了，無法雨露均霑。

幸好網路的未來還是有不同的可能，那就是近年越來越主流的科技關鍵字「Web 3.0」。如同本書書名《Read Write Own》，Web 3.0就是結合第一代網路的初心，以及第二代網路蓬勃的生態系，讓使用者不只能夠存取、創作，更能夠擁有(own)網路，它的底層架構就是區塊鏈。區塊鏈自從2008年中本聰提出比特幣白皮書以後，2015年以太坊也上線，打開了更廣泛應用的潛能。經過16年的各種跌宕起伏，區塊鏈的技術和生態系也越來越成熟，專注於區塊鏈產業的內行人士都深信它就是電腦和網路的未來，區塊鏈將重新塑造網路的架構。如同企業網路在2000s~2010s將開放的網路架構重新劃分、據為己有，區塊鏈的出現可望再次打破這個限制，讓網路回歸使用者手上，讓使用者成為利害關係人，既是參與者、建造者、擁有者~也是治理者。

這本書的作者Chris Dixon是世界上最知名的加密貨幣領域投資人之一，他是矽谷最大的創投公司之一Andreessen Horowitz(又稱為a16z)的general partner。題外話，如果想了解創投產業，記得去讀《矽谷創投啟示錄》，金融時報和麥肯錫2022年度商業書獎決選作品之一(2024年名單這週又出來了哦~贊助者改為Schroders集團)，讀完你以後讀科技相關的書籍就會覺得很親切，因為太多矽谷的創新都跟創投息息相關。

這些創投家推動了20世紀中葉至今的科技文明，Web 2.0企業網路的建立跟他們也有密切關係。創業投資人經常也是科技福音的佈道者，向群眾宣揚科技的優勢，並提點科技可能帶來的負面影響，Dixon也是一位知名的crypto evangelist，他很用心長期經營部落格、寫文章，也協助創立a16z負責投資crypto和blockchain的部門及基金，領投一些代表性的新創。

創投業也有一個很知名的榜單叫Midas List，富比世雜誌每年都會選出全球科技業最佳投資人，這幾年區塊鏈是媒體的焦點，Chris Dixon就獲選為2022年的榜首，一個非常耀眼的成就! 他最知名的投資案就是Coinbase，最成功的加密貨幣交易所之一，如果想知道Coinbase的創業故事可以去讀《加密貨幣之王》，跟FTX的《無限風暴》位於光譜的兩極啊，恰好五月時Binance的CZ也認罪被判刑。

「加密貨幣」在媒體的報導中，往往只關注投機行為，使大眾誤以為區塊鏈技術只用於犯罪行為，而蒙上一股陰影，讓大眾對它持懷疑態度，進而忽略其長遠的價值。區塊鏈其實具有改變世界的能力，而且已經在我們一般人沒注意到的檯面下快速進行中，如果你想跟上時代潮流，認識一下區塊鏈應該是必須的吧。

有鑑於很多人對區塊鏈和加密行業仍感到陌生，Dixon決定捲起袖子自己來寫一本Blockchain 101(如果你看到書名叫”某某101”，在英文裡代表某個領域的入門介紹)，以高中生都能了解的語言，向讀者介紹這個產業的來龍去脈。

本書出版於今年(2024)一月，七月就已經有繁中版超讚，超級快速! 而且翻譯和審訂品質就不用懷疑了，台灣區塊鏈領域的頂級KOL用心把關，保證讀起來平易近人，清晰明瞭! 我平常沒有很積極追蹤區塊鏈產業的發展，偶爾看到新聞才會更新腦中的資訊，如果你也是跟我一樣好奇想”快速又有點深入地”了解區塊鏈，但又沒有太多技術背景的讀者，本書可以放到待讀清單的上方，因為你不只會了解區塊鏈的背景知識，更重要的是對於整個「網路」的結構會有嶄新的認識，光這一點就值得買回來看了。

[Adam Harnish · Rating 5 out of 5]

There’s a lot of new technologies to keep track of these days. Between AI, VR, autonomous vehicles and more, it’s easy for blockchains to be overlooked. Not only that, but I think many of us have a negative impression of the two main products of blockchains - cryptocurrencies and NFT’s. So it’s safe to say blockchains were at the bottom of my barrel before I read this book.

But Chris Dixon gives a powerful argument in Read Write Own that blockchains are the key to an open, decentralized third phase of the internet. His thesis - Big Tech (Facebook, Google, Apple, etc.) has monopolized the online world, and users are paying the price. These companies are extracting more and more money from users, while users don’t actually own any of their stuff on these platforms. Users get less than 1% of all Facebook revenue, for example. This problem will only get worse as we spend more time online in an AI-powered VR landscape.

Dixon says the problem comes down to ownership. Blockchains prohibit one entity from monopolizing, instead guaranteeing that power will stay decentralized. Users will be able to actually own their assets and can hop from network to network retaining all their followers, usernames, skins, etc. And that’s just the beginning - because all the code will be open-source, better and better blockchains will be built over time all over the world, as opposed to being consolidated within one or two companies.

It’s a fascinating read. It prompted me to dig deeper into his arguments and see where people agree and disagree. Scroll through a few reviews on Goodreads and you’ll find some compelling arguments against Dixon, for sure. But knowledge has to start somewhere, and I think this book is a thorough, inspiring first step into the world of blockchains. And I think that’s a step worth taking, because blockchains and cryptocurrencies are here to stay.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Big tech taxes innovation and creativity!

and it's not a low tax 🫤

I really don't like the economic state of the internet today...

Most of it's economics is flowing through gateways of a handful of big tech companies and they are taking a ridiculous percentage of it.

Apple & Google app stores: ~30%
YouTube: 45%
Instagram, TikTok, Facebook... ~100% 🤯

The big tech is making hundreds of billions off of users attention and engagement, creator's creativity, and innovator's ideas and inventions!

Again: they tax innovation and creativity! 😡

When there is low economic incentives to be creative (because of this big tax) and

when you know you have no power over these giants and

they can wipe out your creations or

tax you even more,

innovation slows down 😢

This book made me at least 10 times smarter about internet, web, protocols, networks, economics and innovation.

It's the education of a lifetime if you care about any of the above or human progress in general.

brilliant analogies and perspective! I ordered 3 more copies to give as gifts!

Chris explains how blockchain networks are essential building blocks of the next era of the internet and

how they can counterbalance the current internet consolidation by big tech.

Happy reading! 📙

[Paul Duca · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible. Dixon does a fantastic job of going deep enough to illustrate the value and state of blockchain and its relationship to the current internet/web in detail, without getting caught up in details.

This book has reinvigorated my interest and passion for blockchain and technology, something that was hurt by the corporate network structure that Dixon sums up so well.

My only feedback would be at times it gets slightly repetitive, possibly could have cut down on some of the sections which beat the same drum, but I don’t think this takes away from how fantastic this book is. And many of the points that are repeated bear repeating.

Highly recommended for anyone interested in technology, marketing, economics, democracy, and the future!

[Terry Hoover]

This book is about blockchain programing, which has been around for better than 10 years but so far has only been used for bitcoin processing. Any one can participate in building these programs as long as the program validations who run the program agrees with the addition. The same process let's anyone who uses it add data to it. The author also says that we need to get congress to pass laws to regulate the industry, something that l definitely agree with. Right now we run the computer industry using laws from the 1930s the were passed for the depression. If your not a member of the industry you should take your time reading this, don't be afraid to stop and think about what you have read, and reread to make sure you understand what the book says.

[Anubhav Singhal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Based on the title, I expected book to be little more inclined towards the tech. Instead, it was completely philosophical. In a good way though.

It’s a good book if you want to understand the history of Internet, how the it evolved to present and how it should evolve later. What are the challenges we are facing with the current Internet mod, and how we can solve them.

I greatly admire the metaphors Chris used throughout the book. Now, my mental models are based on those metaphors.

[Mike Young · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dixon is best in class at succinctly explaining the potential of blockchain and also the need for patience when evaluating new technologies. Great historical context. Short of 5 stars because there wasn’t much new in the book that he hasn’t discussed already on numerous podcasts. Structure is a little monotonous as well.

[Nick Paris · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a terrific new baseline for understanding internet history and its progression to web3. It pushes our frontiers forward by being a wealth of information for the future of our technological world.

I feel privileged to say a lot of the information in this book was not new to me. Thus, I worry it is still quite hard to digest for someone not very integrated into web3 already. Yet, this will be the book I recommend to crypto-curious friends with patience and curiosity.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun read, and interesting insights on web 2 and corporate models (cool graphs), but I thought it could’ve delved deeper into each corporation. And also a bit more on potential for further blockchain applications, only got to that the last two chapters?

[Claire Fridkin · Rating 2 out of 5]

well, i finished it, as difficult as it was. this book…. raised far more questions than answers. as a non-blockchain expert, i was overcome with jargon. there seems to be no real evidence to back up dixon’s claims, as promising and compelling as his vision of the future may be. if there is a book that is going to 1) educate me properly on blockchain and 2) convince me not just of its virtues but of a realistic implementation, this is NOT it. good riddance!

[Irham Ghaniy · Rating 5 out of 5]

insightful books to navigate the web3 landscape whether even if you are a newbie

[Sapphira Solstice · Rating 3 out of 5]

5/10
There were brilliant insights, explanations, and predictions in this book, but there was also a lot of BS, false presumptions, and a significant amount of factually incorrect points.

Dixon launches into a tirade at the beginning of this book, attacking big tech companies and the monopoly they have over the internet. It’s one viewpoint.

He goes on to discuss how having free services, i.e., social media, means that we are the product; our data is tracked and sold. This is a common outcry that the haters make these days, but honestly, I would much rather that my currency for social media sites and other services is my data than my cash (i.e. in the form of a subscription model). I just don’t feel attached to my data in the way a lot of people clearly do.

There were a lot of technical descriptions in the book and I have to say, Dixon did an excellent job of explaining complex systems and theories in understandable terms and by using helpful analogies. In particular, his descriptions of how blockchain, proof of work, and proof of stake work were excellent.

Interesting points in the book:

- Demonstrating the lack of enthusiasm for the Internet even at the height of the dotcom mania: “In March 2000, the National Academy of Engineering placed the Internet thirteenth on its list of greatest engineering achievements of the 20th century.” Safe and abundant water was at no. 4 (see full list here).

- When a prominent polling firm asked Americans in October 2002 if they would adopt broadband, the majority said “no”. People mostly used the Internet for web surfing, did it really need to be faster? The mainstream consensus was that the Internet was cool, sure, but it had limited uses and probably wasn't a good place to build a livelihood.

- Moore's Law states that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles about every two years with a minimal cost increase.

- Wikipedia is the only not-for-profit online enterprise to have lasted.

- “The internet was supposed to be decentralized and ended up becoming very centralized.”
- This is an interesting and fair point to make, but I believe there is a natural cycle there that will always occur - something starts small and scattered, and gradually, people and parts are magnetically drawn together to make a unified stronger force; people get together to strengthen their resources, and with this, hierarchies naturally form.

- “Blockchain networks have already gone through multiple boom and bust cycles, each one bigger than the last. Some of the initial excitement was grounded in genuine tech breakthroughs.”

- “You can ask an AI chatbot for a list of restaurants to visit or to summarize a news event, and it will give you a self-contained answer; no clicking to other sites is required. If this becomes the new way to search, AI could one-box the entire Internet, thereby breaking the multi-decade covenant between search engines and the content they index. The next decade in AI will be exciting; new applications will increase economic productivity and improve people's lives, but advances in AI also mean we will need new economic models for content providers.”

- “The choices individual creators make to opt in or out of AI training data? We learned this lesson the hard way with search engines in the 1990s. Web standards groups provided a way for websites to exclude themselves from search engines through the ‘no index’ tack. Content providers learned that when they opted out, and others didn't, they lost traffic and gained nothing in return. Individually, the websites had no power. The only way they would have power is if they organized and bargained as a group, which they never did. An opt-out solution to AI would lead to the same outcome. Other content providers would fill the gaps, and whatever is left would be filled by content farms. Indeed, the problem is worse than with search because it's hard to restrict the flow of loosely inspired ideas and imagery.”
- I think this point has interesting roots, but the potential effects are exaggerated. It certainly is interesting to see how things have and will continue to evolve in this space.

- “We should build systems that allow users and applications to verify the authenticity of media. One idea is to allow attestation claims backed up by cryptographic digital signatures on blockchains where users and organizations can vouch for individual pieces of media. Here's how that might work: the author of a video, photo or audio track could digitally sign a media identifier called a hash, saying, "I created this content”. Another organization, like a media entity validates it.”
- This could work but then you need to rely on big trustworthy entities as validators otherwise you have a system ripe for fakes and impersonators, and I thought Dixon hated the big companies? Further I think he doesn’t trust them, so I’m interested to know who he does think we can trust as validators for such processes.

Criticisms of the book:

- Dixon clearly hates big tech companies and sees them as evil but I don’t think he stops to think that it’s not just a behemoth company in question. Each one is made up of thousands of individual people who choose to work there and be part of that ecosystem over working at smaller companies, so it still is a democracy in that sense - all these people are making that choice, and it’s not that they all have an evil mindset. I personally would rather work for a big tech company than a small company or start-up and I don’t believe that I am in the minority with that attitude, so if most people want to work for big companies one can’t criticize them because that is what the majority of people want, and choose.

- Dixon says that Amazon is terrible because they control the whole infrastructure of selling online and undercut other sellers by creating cheap own-brand products, similar to Target etc. I argue that Amazon is actually giving all of the smaller sellers a huge platform (exposure to the entire country through Amazon’s customer platform), which they would never normally have, so actually, that is a bonus for the smaller sellers that outweighs the detriment that Amazon’s cheaper brands may outprice smaller sellers. Note, this applies to streaming music too; artists complain about not making enough money from streaming but the biggest streamed song has generated $23 million for the artist from that one track alone, so it’s not streaming that’s the problem, it’s the number of artists who feel entitled to make a living from selling their art.

- There were many statements I firmly didn’t agree with in this book, one example: “Eventually, people stopped bothering to share photos anywhere, but on Instagram”, this is just point blank not true. Dixon also claims that people have sacrificed their precious content and data to build and strengthen big tech companies, and those companies give no shares to the users who "built, grew, and sustained" these networks. I argue that those people have been receiving a free service in exchange: expensive cloud storage, connection with others, a global platform to express their thoughts and share their content. This is like saying a restaurant should give shares if you eat there all the time.

- Dixon states that in 2009, Bitcoin pioneered the concept of a blockchain. This is wrong, blockchain was first presented in 1991, Bitcoin was just the first practical application.

- “Companies will generally do whatever it takes to maximize profits. If they don't, they won't last long as they'll fall behind other companies that do. Blockchain networks turn “don't be evil” into “can't be evil”. Their architecture provides strong guarantees that their data and code will forever remain open and remixable.”
- I guarantee there will be a way in the future for it to end up being abused and/or controlled by bigger powers.

- “Maybe you liked the way your favorite network is currently governed [i.e. social media sites], but will you like it in the long term? A growing number of people are coming around to the idea that networks are too important to leave to the whims of single powerful companies or individuals.”
- I really don’t think this is a valid concern; if someone doesn’t like the way a network is governed, they can leave it, there are many other options, plus being part of a particular social media network is not a necessity in life.

- “Record labels usually threaten them [new music tech companies] with lawsuits. These threats chill experimentation and new music-related tech products to the extent there are any are generally just minor variations of previous products. Novel approaches are considered too risky and expensive. The effects are palpable; founders create hundreds of video game startups each year, but they found very few music-related startups. That's because entrepreneurs want to spend their time inventing new things, not getting sued. investors have learned their lesson too. They rarely back startups related to music.” 

- This enraged me because it’s 100% not true. There are a plethora of new music tech companies; record labels only sue when their valuable IP is being infringed (like any other IP holder does), investors are sinking billions of dollars into backing new companies, buying music catalogs, and investing in existing successes. Dixon is completely off the mark on this point.

- “Consider the music business again. There are around 9 million musicians on the streaming service Spotify, yet fewer than 18,000 musicians, less than 0.2% of them make more than $50,000 in 2022. Most of the revenue generated went to streaming services and music labels. Tokens cut out layers of high take rate intermediaries.”
- Dixon just does not understand the music industry, which is fair - it’s extremely complex - but so he should write about it as if he does understand it, his points here are completely incorrect and far from the mark. See my earlier comment about the economics of streaming.

The themes and topics of this book are all super fascinating and for the most part, I think Dixon had an excellent way of writing and portraying his ideas, just some of the things he said were damagingly false.

I would recommend this book as really great food for thought, but I would say that overall, I do not share most of the viewpoints that Dixon does.

Final thought: read it for the technical explanations and cast off the opinions.