ZIA, Bundy, Larry discussed on a16z



And so I think that's a very good example of the foundation and others that are prominent people in the community, having strong views, but being willing to adopt them in the face of new information and sort of being able to sense a rough consensus about what was best for the community citizen. You have Zia do Bundy has figured out a way of striking balance between these two wins of top-down monolithic design and imposed control versus completely bottoms up anarchy. And I mean, the Dow is an example is like there was some amount of top down control, but there's also pushback. There's also a dialogue. There's also an involvement from the community. And so I think. That's crucial really because if we think about it crypto network, that goes too far on one end or the other thing you'd end up with, say, for example, if you go too far on the on the bottoms up direction and you just do everything's modular, everyone just moves in the direction of maximum interesting this and. To some extent that's the greatest value. The greatest good for people sort of feel free into contributing whichever way they want, then you might end up with something that's just simply isn't coherent is maybe would be akin to a city that lacks basic infrastructure that lacks like some sort of planning for how the road system should work, how the plumbing system system should work or how the electrical system should work. And so that's clearly that it was likely not not to be the best the best approach, but also have you go too far on the other side then then you don't have enough participation from the community, and then you don't get to build the kind of widespread community that a project like them ultimately succeeds building and what's important about having some amount of much Larry and bottoms up. We're going to station is that it maximizes the surface.

Coming up next