Google/FB/etc were enabled by protocols like HTTP, but the creator of HTTP didn't profit. The gist of the Fat Protocol thesis is that blockchains reverse that: protocol creators profit > app creators. Question: what would be a "fair" reward split between Google, FB, & HTTP?
-
Show this thread
-
E.g. do Google + FB deserve 99% of the reward while HTTP gets 1%? 50-50? 1-99? I'm curious to know what people think, especially since we often frown on platforms that take a high cut, like the App Store or the Kindle, and those are kind of similar to protocol layers.
7 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Optimistically cc'ing some smart, thoughtful people to get the conversation started:
@AdamDraper@APompliano@AriannaSimpson@garrytan@pt@rebeccak462 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @pt @lpolovets and
I’m the co-author of the TLS 1.0 spec in '90s, which well over a decade later in '14 secured $trillions of commerce. Yet the top open source project securing over 60% of internet is being supported by 1/4 FTE of one engineer. Heartbleed happens! Tragedy of the commons.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @pt @ChristopherA and
I dunno. IMHO it makes sense that apps would capture most of the value, but I think there's a good case for giving open source projects that need maintainers a lot more support than they currently get. Maybe it's 5% of all value, maybe it's 0.05%, but prob not 0%?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I’m trying to encourage hedge funds that hold digital assets to commit 1 basis point (00.1%) yearly to the commons, whether through groups like Linux Foundation’s Critical Infrastructure Initiative, or to the nascent #BlockchainCommons Benefit Corp I’m currently investigating.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.