Thin Applications — Placeholder

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 decen

This is an update to The Blockchain Application Stack (2014) and Fat Protocols (2016). When I started thinking about the architecture of blockchain applications back in 2014, I described it as a hierarchical “stack” of functionality. That first iteration described a blockchain at the base with “overlay networks” that provide specific decentralized services on top, forming “shared” protocol and data layers. Above them, independent applications would consume those protocols and redistribute their services to users: The Blockchain Application Stack (2014) I predicted this architecture would domin

related reading

• Fat Protocols | Union Square Venturesusv.com
• Moxie Marlinspike >> Blog >> My first impressions of web3moxie.org
• Who will control crypto? — saffronsaffron.mirror.xyz
• The Fat App Thesisdavidphelps.substack.com
• What I'm frustrated by in cryptoamirbolous.com
• Crypto Narratives & Value: Revisiting the Fat Thesisdecentralised.co
• When is Web3 Worthwhile? Asset as Productcinjon.com
• The Fappening – Zee Prime Capitalzeeprime.capital
• Modular blockchains and SaaS companiesjaypeg.me
• Expected Value In Crypto & Building Infinite Blockspace - Michael Dempsey: Blogmichaeldempsey.me
• The Hidden Costs of Modular Systems - Multicoin Capitalmulticoin.capital
• Three quarks | David Phelps | Substackdavidphelps.substack.com