Feb 26, 2019 · 45m · a16z
a16z Podcast | Cryptonetworks as Emerging Economies (Done Right?)
Joel Monegro · 16m spoken Jesse Walden · 11m spoken Chris Berniske · 7m spoken Dennis Nazarov · 4m spoken Sonal Chokshi · 2m spoken
0:00 / 0:00
▶ Watch on YouTube →
gold bands on the timeline = statements, start to end. Hover to read, click to jump. CC turns on captions
This episode of the a16z Podcast explores how cryptonetworks function as emerging digital economies, analyzing protocol stack architectures, token economic models, and sustainable governance structures. Venture capital partners and protocol builders debate how decentralized systems can prevent wealth inequality, fund public infrastructure, and balance protocol ossification with active governance.
How this conversation actually went
Every chapter scored 0–10 on four independent dynamics. Hover any point for the reasoning behind the score. The host holds 4.9% of the talking time here. How this is scored →
The host as informed peer 6.3 Guest teaching 3.8 Guest disagreement 3.2 The host pushing back 4.2
speaking balance: gold is the host, purple is the guest (3 minute bins)
Sharpest disagreement ▶ 10:36 Rejecting Consumer Risk Protection
Joel forcefully rejects Jesse's suggestion that consumers should be shielded from risk, arguing that risk is essential for value creation and calling the protective framing patronizing.
Hardest push from the host ▶ 24:32 Cloud Infrastructure Value Accrual ChallengeDennis directly challenges Chris's thesis on protocol value capture by contrasting commodity cloud providers like AWS with the vastly higher market caps of application unicorns built on top.
Biggest teaching moment ▶ 5:59 Macroeconomic Currency vs Capital BreakdownJoel delivers an extended macroeconomic lesson explaining how fiat economies separated currency from capital, causing systemic wealth concentration, and why crypto must avoid repeating this mistake.
The host holds their own ▶ 24:32 Cloud Provider vs App Unicorn Value ComparisonDennis uses deep industry knowledge of cloud architecture and software economics to counter Chris's assumptions regarding base-layer value retention.
the scores for every segment, with the reasoning behind each
| Chapter | Topic | The host as informed peer | Guest teaching | Guest disagreement | The host pushing back | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protocol Stack Layers and Work Token Models | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | Jesse introduces the taxi medallion model analogy to synthesize Chris's work token concept and asks about alignment between users and suppliers. The guests explain L1 versus L2 work abstractions in an agreeable, educational manner. | |
| Currency, Capital, and Preventing Wealth Inequality | 2 | 6 | 3 | 0 | Joel presents a monologue on macroeconomic history, arguing that separating currency from capital causes wealth inequality and warning against dual-token crypto models. The hosts do not intervene during this segment. | |
| Risk Exposure, Cognitive Overhead, and User Defaults | 7 | 4 | 6 | 7 | Jesse challenges Chris's claim that work tokens prevent passive capital accumulation, comparing stake delegation to NYC taxi medallion hedge funds. Joel counters forcefully, calling attempts to protect users from risk patronizing. | |
| Supply Side vs. Demand Side Risk and Value Capture | 6 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Jesse pushes back on universal risk exposure, arguing that user defaults and choice matter more than forcing risk on every consumer. Chris and Joel clarify the distinction between stakers on the supply side and demand-side end users. | |
| Layer-Specific Governance and Base Substrates | 8 | 1 | 0 | 2 | Jesse and Dennis outline a conceptual framework matching protocol stack layers with governance complexity, comparing base layers to nation-state citizenship and L2 applications to corporate governance. The guests agree and build on this premise. | |
| Cryptonetworks as Emerging Economies and Tech History | 4 | 7 | 1 | 1 | Joel delivers a historical analysis tracing technology paradigms from 1950s IBM hardware to 1990s web data, concluding that governance is the value layer above open data. Dennis asks a prompting question at the end regarding base-layer commoditization. | |
| Value Capture Evolution and Power Token Economics | 8 | 4 | 4 | 8 | Dennis forcefully challenges Chris's optimism about L1 value capture by drawing a parallel to cloud computing where application unicorns capture far more market cap than underlying infrastructure like AWS. Chris and Joel defend protocol value accrual through store-of-value and marginal cost frameworks. | |
| Protocol Taxation Models and Infrastructure Funding | 7 | 4 | 2 | 3 | Dennis proposes an explicit protocol taxation model (such as ERC-20 taxes) to fund base chain development. Chris and Joel analyze this idea using monetary theory and existing inflationary developer pools like Decred. | |
| Rough Consensus, On-Chain Governance, and Power Tokens | 8 | 3 | 5 | 7 | Jesse cites Venkatesh Rao's Breaking Smart thesis and IETF history to advocate for rough consensus at the base layer. Dennis warns that automated power token governance creates dangerous defaults, prompting Joel to defend structured on-chain governance paired with off-chain diplomacy. | |
| Protocol Ossification vs. Dynamic Application Governance | 8 | 3 | 6 | 8 | Jesse directly counters Chris and Joel by insisting that general base layers must ossify like the IP protocol to maintain developer trust, whereas application layers require dynamic governance. Dennis emphasizes that application collateral cannot be forked like base chains. |
Statements from this episode (24)
Monegro: Layer 1 executes machine work while Layer 2 handles human work
“Layer one is more machine work and layer two is more human work.”
Berniske: Decentralized services require lower costs or unique functionality to win adoption
“And the only way that that ends up being a service that the end user uses is either if it's cheaper than existing services that you can get from the centralized model, but on par in terms of user experience, or it's a fundamentally new experience or service, a…”
Berniske: End users will pay in fiat while work tokens handle supply side
“And I think we'll increasingly see this where the demand side is going to just pay in whatever asset they want. They don't need to interface with crypto assets from a day to day perspective, but you can still have value in a work token that organizes the suppl…”
Monegro: Dual-token crypto models lead to wealth concentration among early holders
“And the risk of separating the access token or the work token from the currency token is that the people who accumulated the access tokens early on, that group becomes increasingly concentrated over time. As the economy grows or as the crypto network grows.”
Monegro: Single-token designs force capital distribution to enable network usage
“The value of combining the two, if you have a single token that is both a supply side token and a payment token, in order for the supply side to provide its service, it has to take payment in that token. So the token has to be in the user's hands in order for …”
Berniske: Work tokens prevent passive capital accumulation in cryptonetworks
“I think one thing, even if we end up in a work token world or taxi medallion world where we've separated capital and currency again, at least within those networks, the one reassuring thing is that you can't be a passive accumulator of capital. You have to be …”
Monegro: Bitcoin will not become a currency for buying coffee
“But I also don't think we're heading to a world where you buy your coffee with Bitcoin.”
Walden: Token ownership creates emotional connection to Ethereum's underlying values
“Ethereum participants own the token, and therefore, you know, have an emotional connection to, you know, the values of the infrastructure, and what, you know, its goals, and what it aims to achieve.”
Jesse Walden: Base layers suit single tokens, higher layers require separated governance
“So I would argue that the base layer of the system being more general lends itself to this sort of single token model a little bit better. But as you move further up the stack, I think you do want this separation between sort of the management and the users be…”
Dennis Nazarov: Base crypto layers resemble countries while top-layer apps resemble corporations
“And maybe an analogy is the base layer is sort of like a country. It's like, you're a citizen of America. You get to vote and participate in, you know, elections and to decide kind of policy. Taxation policy is the substrate for all economic activity built on …”
Monegro: Blockchains challenge tech's proprietary data model like Linux disrupted software
“Right on schedule we get the arrival of a new open technology, which are blockchains that directly challenge The proprietary data business model, just as the internet and Linux challenged the proprietary software and distribution business model.”
Berniske: Value capture in crypto will move up the protocol stack
“I think we will see an evolution of value capture within crypto, where value will start to move up the protocol stack.”
Berniske: Developer attention is crypto's most valuable resource
“Developer attention is the most valuable resource, I would argue, within crypto right now.”
Berniske: Most Layer 1 protocols will be commoditized
“So I don't think every layer one protocol will capture a ton of value. I think most of them will get commoditized and the ones that don't will be the ones that become these stores of value.”
Monegro: Crypto value accrues where service costs are highest
“Value will accrue to where there is the highest cost. And it doesn't really matter where in the layer that is. It matters more what is the kind of service that's being provided and what is the cost of that service.”
Berniske: Fixed-supply governance tokens appreciate as network governance costs grow
“If you have a fixed supply of that asset, But the cost and value of governing that network is going up, then so too should the cost per token of that asset.”
Walden: General computation blockchains benefit most from rough consensus governance
“I would make the argument that general computation platform would lend itself to that same process, because you want it to do this very general thing, and a thing that is very deterministic.”
Monegro: Governance power increases in value as crypto networks grow larger
“And my belief is that as the game becomes more valuable, then the power to change the rules becomes more valuable as well.”
Nazarov: Automatic protocol upgrades present worse catastrophic risk than consensus models
“So if the network automatically upgrades into some, you know, specific version of the code, the catastrophic scenarios are much worse because everyone opts into a default, whereas in this more weak consensus model everyone has to agree in kind of a broader way…”
Monegro: Rough consensus governance only works well for small stakeholder groups
“And my take on it is rough consensus works well when you're small and when the number of stakeholders is fairly small.”
Berniske: Crypto networks lacking formal governance devolve into defection
“I think also if you don't have formal governance mechanisms and clarity around it, you devolve into governance by defection. And we saw that with Bitcoin.”
Walden: General base-layer protocols must ossify to foster developer trust
“The more general the service of a crypto network, the more it should be ossified. So again, coming back to this, IP is ossified, Bitcoin has ossified, maybe a general computation substrate is better ossified because it lends itself to the trust that the develo…”
Nazarov: Collateralized applications like stablecoins cannot be hard-forked
“Like you can't fork in the case of a stable coin because it has all this collateral. You can't fork the collateral because you, your DAP doesn't control that. You know, you are using the existing platform's collateral.”
Monegro: On-Chain Governance Criticisms Rely on Primitive Linear Voting Assumptions
“I think a lot of arguments against on-chain governance are kind of primitive in their thinking around how is that governance applied. One common element of a lot of the counter arguments is the assumption that governance power is linear and one token equals on…”