The pioneers of new technology must raise a lot of capital to create foundational infrastructure, which can lead to over-investment and speculative bubbles. When these bubbles burst, weak firms fail, and market power consolidates around industry leaders and their paradigms. Through this consolidation process, we can identify the common elements across applications and isolate them into standard, modular components that can be open-sourced or sold as individual services. These abstractions make it easier to build more complex applications and enable a shift from capex-dominant to opex-driven cost structures that allow new products to launch faster and with lower startup costs. This pattern is now unfolding in web3 as new “modular” technologies, such as rollups, accelerate development and unlock an era of lean startup innovation. 

Like many of you, we were surprised to see the rapid collapse of FTX, one of the largest crypto exchanges in the world. The complete details of what happened will take a while to unravel. We already know it’s not good. But we also know that crypto is bigger than any single company, no matter how large. And given what we’re discovering, it’s better this collapse happened now, and not years from now.

Radicle is a new kind of code collaboration network built entirely on open protocols. At the core of it there is a peer-to-peer code network built on Git. It allows developers to host and manage open source software projects on a decentralized network of nodes owned by their peers, instead of centralized platforms like GitHub owned by companies like Microsoft. This is especially important in today’s world, where the power to control information, including code, lies in the hands of the few.

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.

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. 

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 are independently built on top of multiple protocols using what we could call a cryptoservices architecture (like microservices, but with sovereign components). 

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. 

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 (primarily 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.

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.