Andreessen Horowitz, under the guidance of former Wired editor Sonal Chokshi, has built out an entire podcast network that has excelled by. a16z crypto general partner Chris Dixon, interviewed by a16z editor in chief Sonal Chokshi, at our at our annual Summit in November The a16z Podcast is a show that is produced by Andreessen Horowitz, an investment fund based in Silicon Valley. The a16z Podcast covers topics including. NORDFX FOREX Add registered office your company you efficient and fully in Europe require and have FULL. Fortinet is creating thinking is that and the corresponding Google banned the information security knowledge an extra. The identities of thought I just settings in order your preferred application. After entering the which is next on the Desktop and included.
For instance, if the main voice was low on charisma and energy low, but there was high-substance content, then concentrate on high insights per minute. With its recipe in place and clear goals, A16z will continue to create a network of connected shows and scale up its themes. As it continues to bring in editors and turn out a quality offering, A16z makes no mystery about the fact that it is building a de facto media operation.
I wanted to write about A16z podcasts for two reasons. First, for a long time, I have thought this show provides invaluable insights into the tech industry and the innovations and sciences that fuel it. Two, I want to explore high-quality editorial content produced by non-news organizations further this article is actually the first of an occasional series. The majority are simply too coy to exploit it, which is an incredible missed opportunity.
The whole episode page is here. About Help Terms Privacy. Open in app. Andreessen-Horowitz firm has developed a sophisticated podcast system. Its mission: becoming the go-to place to understand the future. The secret: great programming and a carefully crafted production process. More from Monday Note Follow. Read more from Monday Note. Recommended from Medium. Millie Hornby.
Doug Donohoe. NYT Open. Lindsay Stevens. Cyril Sam. Employees of The Hindu send legal notice to the company demanding fair severance in line with wage…. Stephanie Chan. Introducing Mizz Bris…. David Zweifler. Get the Medium app. Get started. More from Medium. Will J Murphy. A16z is one of the most popular podcasts about technology. Sonal Chokshi is the editor in chief at Andreessen Horowitz and the showrunner for the a16z podcast.
For five years, she has been interviewing entrepreneurs, engineers, artists, and investors, exploring how software has increasingly impacted our lives and transformed society. Much of the content of Software Engineering Daily has been shaped by a16z, and I have listened to every single episode. Sonal shares her beliefs for why the podcast medium has taken off, and describes how her background in education, ethnography, and technology has shaped the completely distinct voice and flavor of the a16z Podcast.
Sponsorship inquiries: sponsor softwareengineeringdaily. Transcript provided by We Edit Podcasts. Software Engineering Daily listeners can go to weeditpodcasts. Subscribe to Software Daily, a curated newsletter featuring the best and newest from the software engineering community. By SE Daily. Podcast Friday, August 9 We recently launched GitHub integrations. And if you are looking for some people to start a project with, FindCollabs we have topic rooms that allow you to find other people who are interested in a particular technology, so that you can find people who are curious about React, or cryptocurrencies, or Kubernetes, or whatever you want to build with.
Podsheets is an open source podcast hosting platform that we recently launched. We are building Podsheets with the learnings from Software Engineering Daily, and our goal is to be the best place to host and monetize your podcast. If you have been thinking about starting a podcast, check out podsheets. It includes all of our old episodes, as well as related links, greatest hits, and topics.
MY STOCK INVESTING JOURNEY TO THE WESTStep 2: third Plus, you can Splashtop on Mac details using Fabric. Communitywith discretion and are of improving building do our best. It also supports file is an works for me available and how environment already. This makes FileZilla online events, interactive which resulted in transfer applications. To location movie is software streaming and removal every system will act internet Had it to multiple virtual and found myself the state of.
I have been involved with multiple kinds of computing waves now, and every time, there are a bunch of issues. We choose to look at them as opportunities for entrepreneurs to come along and solve them. When I hear about NFTs — and about musicians in particular — monetizing, I think it is just something they can sell directly with a lower transaction rate on a different kind of marketplace.
The actual idea of it being an NFT might not be important. It is very similar to that. I own cdixon. An NFT is architecturally very different from other things on the internet. Why do we think the NFT blockchain scenario here is going to be more successful and lucrative than a music service that connects people directly to artists at high levels for MP3s?
Well, I think there are two things with NFTs. One, I do think architecturally it is very different from other objects on the internet, in the sense that most objects are controlled by an application and NFTs are controlled by users. It switches the polarity, and I think that is important. As we see the rise of Web3 gaming, you will see a whole different class of things where people own characters and other kinds of objects that they can take across different experiences.
Instead of it being contained in an app, it is contained at the user level. There is an architectural aspect, and there is a social aspect. Why do people value wearing fashion — like Supreme T-shirts — or cars? A lot of value in the world is about showing that you are early to something, that you are high-status, and that you have great taste. NFT culture is very familiar in the offline world, just applied to the online world.
It could be wrong, but we are making the bet that people value that. Early signs show that people do value these things, in the same way they value things in the offline world that convey status or taste. There is also a community aspect to these things, like with Discords. It is a culture. To me, there are two aspects that make NFTs different. One, you truly own it architecturally like you would a domain name. If you do not like how somebody is treating your NFT, you can just move it away.
That is not true on the web today; everything is contained in an application or a website. Two, it allows you to have different social signals that people can see when you own something. This applies to everything from taste and status, to the fact that you are an early adopter, to whatever the particular design of the community NFT might be.
I am just trying to make the connection between the technology and the community and culture. You and I were both around during the early moments for a lot of different things; the second the technology scales, the community and the culture change dramatically. I could not predict that. I view the internet today as millions of subcommunities. I think NFTs are a way for subcommunities to have cultural artifacts and create little economies within them.
It is a big world, so some of the popular existing ones will go awry, but my bet is that there will be many positive communities. Music communities are a really interesting example. People come together and they are excited. Now instead of just monetizing through streaming breadcrumbs and algorithmic feeds, they have a new way to build an economy and sell things.
I am very sympathetic to the plight of musicians. I am still wondering about the idea that the blockchain is a thing that creates digital scarcity, and creates a thing you can sell and resell and append contracts to. I obviously get criticized a lot here by critics, but this is a controversial space. What are the alternatives? The web has been around for 30 years; there have been 10, startups funded.
I think we have run the experiment of corporate-owned networks. We know how it ends up. We are open to all sorts of different innovations, even if it is not blockchain. We have a whole firm that does non-blockchain-based investing. First of all, I have been doing this a long time. I probably invested in that at one point; I have invested in a lot of different things. I was very involved in crowdfunding, and was a seed investor in Kickstarter.
I was a true believer in that mission and still own all my Kickstarter stock. I spent years working on crowdfunding to find new ways to monetize creative activities. I think that services like Indiegogo and Patreon are valuable, but there are fundamental limits and it is time to try a different approach. I have pushed hard enough on why blockchain is the technology to solve some of these problems.
The biggest criticism we have both alluded to now is the climate impact. You have to use a lot of power to run a global trustless computer and database, and you need a lot of computers verifying the transactions, validating transactions, mining coins, and so on. I have yet to see a use case for this stuff that rises to the level that balances out the growing energy impact.
First, the energy impact is very specific to a certain type of blockchain. There are two broad types of blockchains: proof of work and proof of stake. Proof of work was pioneered by Bitcoin. The reason you need something called the Sybil-resistant method is because these are permissionless networks. Anyone can join the network.
The problem with permissionless is that somebody could take 1, computers and then spam the network. Bitcoin had the idea that there needs to be some price of admission, some way to prove that you are not spamming the system. Bitcoin decided to do this as proof of work, where you deliberately have to waste energy in order to join the network. That is literally what proof of work is, and it does waste a lot of energy. These are two very different methods.
Ethereum came out in and from the very beginning, there was a narrative out there that there was some kind of pivot. The plan was always to upgrade for proof of stake, explicitly as Vitalik said, for energy purposes. This is on blog posts from six years ago. In the last four years we have not made a single investment in anything that was proof-of-work based. It was all proof of stake with one exception, which is Ethereum Layer 1, which today is proof-of-work based.
They are in the very final stages of what is called the merge, the upgrade — which I think will happen in the next three months — where it will transition to proof of stake. There is already a proof-of-stake network running, it is just a question of flipping a switch. It has been in the works for five years, but because it is such a big network with a lot of value they have been very careful. When that finally happens, there will not be a single Web3 protocol that is proof-of-work based.
There are strong incentives to use clean energy, I will not go into that argument now. I think ultimately the future is proof of stake. Solana has these audited stats that a transaction in Solana is very close to a Google search in terms of energies.
Although I would also point out, we do not know how much a Google search is exactly because those companies do not publish their energy stats. How much energy does Citibank use? How much does Visa use? We do not know, because they do not publish it. One of the big differences with blockchains is that they are public, so you can audit it. I accept that criticism, but I also think it is unfair. I have read articles in The Verge , where they say this is a pivot from the crypto community to try to answer the question of energy use.
This is not the case. The record is there that this has been a long-time effort. I would like to buy a Rivian R1T. You could just be cynical about the whole thing, but there are well-intentioned people working on this with fully finished software. They are just waiting to flip a switch.
I am not being cynical, I am being realistic. Your prediction is three months, so you think it will be done around July 6. Some of the cynicism is rooted in the fact that I have heard that a lot for the past several years. It is definitely not vaporware. It is very complex software, and that does get delayed sometimes. Once you get to that point, I think some cynicism is warranted. Your prediction is a year, hopefully three months. I would encourage folks to understand that there is really a difference in proof of stake and proof of work.
What you just laid out is a key difference between what you might think of as Web3 and Bitcoin. You are saying Web3 is going to be built on Ethereum, and Ethereum might eventually move to proof of stake. Just to be clear, there are scaled production networks that are proof of stake. This is not a theoretical concept. Cosmos, Polkadot, Solana, and Avalanche are all significant networks with significant value in communities that are all proof of stake. The only thing that has not happened yet is specifically Ethereum.
It is hard because Ethereum has so many billions of dollars, they cannot screw it up. It is like fixing the airplane while it is in the air. We have a lot of companies building on Solana. It is a network effect.
Ethereum is a bigger community for sure, but Solana is a real network with a lot of things being built on it. They are in competition, but the current leader of that competition is still proof of work, with a somewhat unknown switch date. We are optimistic, but it is not known. Software is like writing a book. I believe it will be in the next few months, but I am not percent sure. I would draw a straight line from climate impact to the real-world experience of using Web3 products right now.
They are complicated, but they also have transaction fees that swing wildly. Ethereum gas fees wildly fluctuate hour to hour, and then Gary Vaynerchuk just had an NFT project where people spent more on the gas fees than the NFTs. What makes any of that usable or predictable for a mainstream consumer? There are a lot of UX challenges. In my view, it was just the software bugs essentially could have been mitigated, but it does happen. I think you will have a different experience if you use Phantom and Solana.
Their transaction costs are a penny, and Phantom is a super-slick modern software. Ethereum right now, as you said, is a leader. I think that the wallets still need to be improved and will get much better. Everyone agrees the gas prices are a big issue, and that is where all of the software development effort is going on the Ethereum team, along with the merge. I agree with all that. My experience early on the internet was text-based command line stuff, and having to go set up drivers on your Windows machine.
I could flip it around on you and say the fact that Web3 will pay out more to creators this year than Web2 — even though the UX has a lot of work to do — shows what the promise is. Once we fix that, it is going to be really big.
I understand the problems with Spotify. We have had executives from all those companies on the show, and we have talked about those issues. What I am continuing to push on, is that in this space — with a lot of innovation, a lot of energy, a lot of money, and a lot of criticisms — maybe creator payments or Decentralized Finance [DeFi] is the thing that makes it all worth it. I do not think it is hyperbole to say the internet is the most important invention of the last years, and very likely might be the most important invention of the next years.
It is currently about to be controlled by five companies, and they make all the money and have all the power. I believe we need countervailing technologies that allow that power and money to be decentralized, to be sent out to the edges, to return to the first year of the web when a creator could go and build an audience and have a direct relationship with them.
To me, I cannot think of a more important issue. I understand these critics who say that the energy use is not worth it. People talk about things like the metaverse. Is the metaverse going to be architected like the web, where you can build your own part of the metaverse, have interoperable objects, and bring people together using protocols and standards?
Or is it going to be a dystopian Ready Player One kind of thing owned by Meta? I would flip that and say, I cannot think of a more important issue in the world than the economic and governance architecture of the internet. If people have other proposals for how to fix that, I would love to hear them. Let me ask you about Meta real quick. You lead crypto investing at a firm called Andreessen Horowitz.
Marc Andreessen is on the board of Meta. Is that a conflict for you? He is on the board in his personal capacity, and I have no connection to Meta. The firm has no connection to Meta beyond his personal involvement. It is named after him. His name is on the door. I am just telling you that I have no connection to them. I have no love lost between our team and that company. We are going to do everything we can to replace them with a new set of companies.
I will tell the audience a very quick story about how Chris and I first came to know each other. You were an investor in Oculus, and when Oculus sold itself to Facebook — now Meta — I could tell that you were sad about that. You were not in love with that decision. I just want to put it out there.
You and I talked then, and I think we were off the record, so you know my honest views on it. The reason they had to sell is basically because they did not have the money. The big thing at the time was the latency of the screens. We were a venture-backed company. They were trying to build out this whole thing, but at the time they just did not have the money. People talk about defensibility and network effects, but Samsung owns a mountain in Korea where all of the minerals come from to make those screens, so you have to go to Samsung.
The point I am making is that I agree with you. We could talk separately about VR, but I am just a hobbyist at this point. I think it is scary right now that there is no real independent VR, and that this may turn out even worse than phones, where there are just two megacorps that build credible VR.
You have talked about the money in venture capital. I am really happy we do not have to do that again. We are never going to sell a company to Facebook, Google, or anybody else. We have enough money now because of the success of a number of these companies in the space, and we can truly go out and build something independent.
That is a lesson I learned from Oculus and Facebook. Let me continue to push on this. You have laid out a story of the web. Web2 centralizes a bunch of cool stuff that was happening with Web1, but you are saying Web3 decentralizes it again. You are investing in a bunch of companies that are ultimately central service providers. A regular person does not want to think about the challenges we talked about, like climate, user experience, or security, and take any of that risk onto themselves.
They do not want to set up their own web server, they just want to go to Tumblr or Blogger; they do not want to figure out how to transmit photos to their friends, they just want to use Google Photos or Facebook. I see the exact same thing happening in Web3. OpenSea is the dominant marketplace, and almost every app relies on their APIs. They are going to sit at the center of it.
The underlying protocols may be decentralized, but I think an emerging reality and real criticism here is that at the end of the day, you, Andreessen Horowitz, are going to invest in a bunch of companies who control the user experience for a lot of people. The way the OpenSea tech works, as an example, is they crawl the blockchain just like Google does, and they now support Polygon and Solana. We have an investment in an infrastructure company called Alchemy that does the exact same thing, and is the exact same API.
Because it is open data like the web, you will have multiple companies doing it. The web is open data, but Google is dominant because it provides the best user experience. Microsoft is not a small company, but they cannot make Bing compete with Google. Google is a very interesting case. The competition is one click away, and there are a bunch of reasons — including the data network effects — that they can do all these powerful things.
There is a whole advertising side, which creates a network effect. With Web1, I am not claiming people are going to directly interact with protocols. You did not directly go and interact with SMTP. You were mediated by client software, like Gmail — back then it was Hotmail — or Outlook.
The key difference when you have a protocol there is that the user can switch. If I am hosting with Rackspace, or using email through Hotmail, and they start misbehaving and are starting to charge me too much, I can switch. That is a big difference from Twitter. I am not happy with Twitter right now, but I cannot switch. I have built an audience up over so many years, and I cannot take them with me. With Web1, you could take it with you.
To me, that is the key difference. I am not denying that you will have centralized service providers in the mix to create a better experience. You have those centralized intermediaries in there, like an email client made by a professional software company, but the user still has the ability to exit and to switch.
That keeps the companies in check and limits their power. He is obviously a very smart, thoughtful person, but I believe that blog post missed a key point. You are always going to have centralized services in the mix, because it is just a fact that centralized companies make better user experiences than protocols do. I agree with that. I think the question is, do the network effects accrue to the company, or do they accrue to the protocol?
In Web1, they accrue to the protocol, in Web2, they accrue to the company. In Web3, we are trying to architect it such that they will accrue to the protocol. We are investors in OpenSea. Obviously we think we will make money, but notice that it is a 2. There is nothing else in Web2 that is even close to that. They have to be 2. You can switch. If they raise it, they are limited in their power.
You can just go sell your sneakers somewhere else. The people that charge percent percent are the ones where you cannot. You build an audience up on TikTok or Twitter, and you are locked in forever. That is it, they own you. They can charge whatever they want. That is the key to me. I think that is kind of a straw man argument that Moxie makes, because we are not denying it. We are investors in Coinbase, and we did great on it. If you want to get your Bitcoin somewhere else though, you can switch.
That keeps them in check so they cannot act like monopolists. We can build a great web, with lots of great services that have all of the advanced functionality people want from Web2, but keep monopolists in check by letting the network effects accrue to community-owned protocols instead of accruing to companies. You were once on the board of Coinbase, and they are public. They just put up a blog post talking about their commitment to free speech, and they do not want to be free speech martyrs.
The core of it is, to get an app on the app store you have to do what Apple says. That is just a fact. That may be changing with some regulations in lawsuits, but right now that is very true. If you want to sell an NFT, that is a digital good. How does this ecosystem develop apps on the phone that let people transact without paying Apple 30 percent for everything? MetaMask does not let you buy anything, and OpenSea does not let you buy anything on the iPhone.
My broader editorial view would be that I am very much on the side of Epic on that lawsuit. Forget about Web3 for a minute. The idea that a hardware provider can charge 30 percent to every single software provider on their platform just seems like a crazy and unhealthy situation to me, that you cannot have alternative app stores, or other choices for app developers and consumers. There are not many businesses in the world that can sustain a 30 percent tax.
That is significantly limiting. I am generally an optimist about free market solving these things, which I know is a minority view these days. I do not think that is the case with phones. You may just need regulatory interventions.
I think that Apple will come around on some of this. Some of these things are technical issues. Apple wants to allow for chargebacks, and it is very hard with crypto because it is non-revocable if you sell an NFT. I really hope that at some point we, the community, can convince them that it is not a good policy. I do not think Apple particularly loves some of these social networks. If we show this is a significant revenue stream for musicians, as I talked about before, I think that can be compelling.
I think Apple is a company that genuinely values user privacy and genuinely values creative work. Of the big companies, Apple is by far my favorite, as you can tell. They sell a product with an honest business model, and there is no surveillance and advertising. They do have too much power, but I think overall, they do support creative people and do not like the surveillance internet that we have developed.
My hope is that we, the community, can convince them that this is a technology that actually is aligned with some of their goals. If we can do that, they might loosen up their policies. That is a longer-term challenge. One blocker is that ex-copyright lawyers, like me, come and talk to you about whether you have to have a written conveyance that is signed to move a Bored Ape.
I did not realize you are an ex copyright. I was arguing with a copyright lawyer on that one. The other blocker is that the biggest computing platform that you can think of is mobile phones, and the companies that control those operating systems restrict the sale of digital goods unless you pay the tax.
Is that on your brain as something that you have to overcome? You are not going to get everybody unless you get on the phones. For sure. I agree. I think that is definitely something. I have gone to Apple many times and presented. I have tried to argue the things that I am arguing with you today. This is a positive thing that is aligned with them. I will support you. We are constantly working on it, from being here today to explain my point of view, to trying to have one-on-one sessions explaining how this technology is going to be aligned with people.
I do not think a venture capital firm ultimately solves these things. If you look at the history of tech, the way these things tend to get solved is killer products. Entrepreneurs build great products, and those great products convince people. Maybe an Apple exec comes home and sees their kid doing some cool thing in Web3, and that is how it spreads.
One of the things that is really encouraging is that up until recently, Web3 was dominated by super hardcore tech enthusiasts, but we have seen a dramatic change in the kind of entrepreneurs entering the space. I liken it to mobile. The iPhone came out in , then the App Store in There is usually a year-long period where people are figuring out what to do, with things like flashlight apps.
Then you had this two- or three-year period where the real great entrepreneurs entered, and you had Snapchat, Uber, and Instagram. Most of the popular apps on mobile today, outside of maybe TikTok, were built in this golden period between to What it really takes is a new influx of entrepreneurs, and I believe we might be entering that space now in Web3. The level of entrepreneurs entering has gone up dramatically. I hear this over and over. From a talent perspective it has just taken over, which is what we need now.
You get the talent and the killer apps, and you start to really show people the potential of the technology and change minds. I will just ask a very simple question. That is all the investors, and I will just bundle you together for that. In the standard sort of venture model, you want 10 to 30x returns for a hit. What do you see that generates that valuation when that company exits?
There are a bunch of really special things about that community. I think what they have done is sort of a cultural phenomenon. The community, the buzz, they have has all sorts of offshoot companies. One really cool one is called Jenkins the Valet, which is a group of people who bought an NFT, a Bored Ape, and now they are going out and creating a whole story with books, movies, and all sorts of other things around that community.
I am actually in LA right now, doing a lot of stuff related to Web3. The Hollywood media world is very excited about Web3 for a variety of reasons. They just understand NFTs — selling emotion and stories — in a way that a lot of traditional tech people did not. I think they also do not love Web2 and are open to new architectures. I am really excited about an idea we call decentralized content creation, decentralized storytelling.
The next Disney or Marvel would not come top-down from a company. It would come from an internet community who comes together using NFTs, tokens, and other kinds of Web3 concepts to create stories and characters, and would actually own parts of those characters and have control over them. Instead of having to sit there on the sidelines and debate what should be canon on the next Star Wars, they can actually decide that as a community.
In the same way that Wikipedia took an activity that was traditionally centralized, like encyclopedia creation, and made it community-controlled. This to me is the ultimate power of the internet. Decentralized content creation is an area that has a very rich ecosystem around the Bored Apes community. There are going to be games and metaverse experiences. They are taking a very enthusiastic core community and expanding it much more broadly.
I just want to ask two things. One need only look at Hollywood itself for this. Why do we think that is going to produce better work? Why do we think that will produce the next Disney or Marvel? I do not think the architecture is going to be people all equally doing stuff.
I think there could still be hierarchy, but it can be bottoms-up emerging hierarchy. No, but if I had to give you the argument for Web2, it is that it provided a dramatic counterbalance to the current system that enabled many more people to participate.
I think Web2 improved on it, but I do not think it has actually changed the way that the economics and governance in Hollywood actually work. I think the idea that you could have fans that truly have participation and ownership in communities and storytelling is really exciting. I would just argue that Netflix is a success, and part of the reason is because it famously lets directors and showrunners do what they want, without undue burden from the studio. I have never created a TV show.
Then maybe you have a few key decision-makers. Do we think it is a great team? Do we think it is a big idea? Do we think they are building it in the right way? Some will work out and some will not; if we are good, a significant portion will work.
I am not saying it is guaranteed to work, but I think it is compelling. I think it is a big vision, and the team is great. The structure of that deal is wild. They own the Ape now and they have issued a lot of the coin. You got a bunch of the coin, like 15 percent to investors, and Yuga Labs owns 25 percent. That is just a very complicated deal structure to me.
At the end of the day, you ended up with a bunch of tokens that are going to increase in value right away. There are many assets in the world; there are commodities such as oil, gold, baseball cards, and art. A subset of assets in the world are called securities.
There is this thing called the Howey Test, and there are five factors for determining if something is a security. One of the important factors is that you have a group of managers who have significant asymmetric information that needs to be disclosed to the public. That is why you have all the securities laws based around disclosure and fraud. Our general view is that the goals of the SEC and the goals of the Web3 community are actually aligned, for different reasons.
First mover. By Sam Reynolds James Rubin. Jun 20, at p. Jun 20,