Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Fat Protocols (usv.com)
66 points by jackgavigan on Aug 8, 2016 | hide | past | favorite | 15 comments



A fun read, but to me it ultimately speaks to why blockchains are best suited to internal use by large enterprises (not consumer, small businesses, etc).

The web flourished due to its lightweight, comparatively easy-to-implement protocols. Applications could be built cheaply and easily on top of it. VCs and many entrepreneurs profited handsomely. Much of the past 20 years in tech has been pushing this concept to literally every person on earth.

Compare to the 'fat protocol': The protocols are tough to write, and tough to implement. The value is captured at the protocol level, not the app level, so there's little incentive to create inventive apps.

Few apps will be created on such systems, so few successful consumer applications will created with them. Seems like the winner here is in business-facing systems. For USV, it strikes me as peculiar to favor the 'fat protocol' and back other types of businesses (e.g. consumer).


> Compare to the 'fat protocol': The protocols are tough to write, and tough to implement. The value is captured at the protocol level, not the app level, so there's little incentive to create inventive apps.

I think the basic claim of this article is wrong. The false comparison comes from comparing the market cap of bitcoin and ethereum to "market cap" of existing protocols. There is no way to measure value of protocols before bitcoin. Therefore the whole basis of the article sounds like bullshit to me.

It is quite easy to write apps which use bitcoin protocol. Also many bitcoin businesses are quite profitable. Not billion-dollar businesses but very good businesses when you compare to the capital invested etc. Also they might be even better businesses longer-term, as the market develops. There is also loads of smaller brokers, gambling sites, atm operators etc who make small living out of bitcoin.


> There is no way to measure the value of protocols before Bitcoin

The point is not to compare the market cap of Bitcoin or Ethereum to the market cap of previous protocols at all. The point is precisely that the previous generation of protocols created immense value but most of it got extracted at the application layer while, as you said, there are many small but highly profitable Bitcoin businesses, but the bulk of the economic value is in Bitcoin itself, not in those.

Contrast that to the web where there is little economic value in the protocol and a lot of economic value in web applications.


What blockchain products, in particular, tend to lack is a complete "economic engine" - there isn't a good or service built in the equation, just a marketing promise that transacting goods and services through the protocol is somehow better, or failing that, some form of investment instrument that is a step removed from goods and services, and consequently less mission-critical for conducting business.

When there is a good or service, you usually find a situation where a centralized monopoly platform - "use our API, use our UI, feed off our database, speak with our sales and CSRs" - is more straightforward to build and more advantageous for the stakeholders who will build and operate such a system. There are only certain niches where there's a definite and ongoing win to build and participate in a decentralized protocol. This rock and hard place has made it hard for the field to break away from purely speculative activity.

While the tech is maturing and growing an impressive set of features, I don't see big breakthroughs coming without a major initiative from a big player.


Reminds me of cult religions where they promise people true purpose in life, but in reality only the ones at the top and the ones who started believing first are the ones who get the benefit. In their case, the rich of the high class always grows faster than the combined value of the group of sheep who start believing later


Sounds like the stock market, or really any investment in business or land. The world isn't perfect.


You don't win in stock market by bringing in more members. In a cult you do.


Is this a fair comparison? How long did it take before the Internet got its first application whose market cap exceeded the cost of the protocol? Have we given blockchain technology long enough to mature?


The difference here is that you can have a stake in the protocol itself by purchasing the token whereas you couldn't do that with the web protocols.

Imagine an HTTPCoin in 1995: how would it's price be affected by the constant stream of web IPOs?


Yes, let's make all our technologies as "fat" as possible so other people can't "capture" and "re-aggregate" our "value". The VC-oriented approach to protocol design!

What’s significant about this dynamic is the effect it has on how value is distributed along the stack: the market cap of the protocol always grows faster than the combined value of the applications built on top, since the success of the application layer drives further speculation at the protocol layer.

That also goes the other way: failure at the application level can bring the token value down as speculators sell, and a lowering token value affects all applications.


100% on it also going the other way, as we've seen repeatedly whenever there is a hack at the application layer. The market cap of the protocol drops at a higher rate than the "actual loss", e.g. last week's Bitfinex hack of $70mm in BTC knocked 20% off the price of bitcoin.


failure at the application level can bring the token value down

Nah, the protocol will just hard fork to bail out the application.


> since the success of the application layer drives further speculation

Define "success" and you describe the use case for a blockchain. I need a record of performance, plus efficient algorithms to summarize those records later after the trust cost of storing that data drops.


This just doesn't make any sense. What was the market cap of protocols before bitcoin? LOL


Love seeing articles like this, attempts at being objective or analyzing the hyped technology. Blockchain land is very peculiar in the way that information amongst market participants exists, where investment is largely necessary to understand the functions available but naturally creates a mental conflict for objective thought. All the while everyone self-segregated from the blockchain arena largely dismisses the mere concept of the available functions.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: