Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...

Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...

Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
>400 subscribers
>400 subscribers
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Facebook goes public and its stock declines. Commentators write that investors should have known it was overpriced. Twitter goes public and its stock pops. Commentators write that the company left money on the table. Not nearly enough people though remark on how crazy it is that companies still go public the way they do. Three years ago I wrote a post saying that I was hoping we would see IPO 2.0 and unfortunately I am still waiting.
What do I mean? Building a complete order book upfront and allowing retail investors to participate in that process directly. This is entirely possible with today’s technology. People place limit orders to buy through their brokerage account all day long – but we use this only for companies that are already public. The same mechanism could be used to build a book before a company is public.
This would be desirable for two reasons. First, a complete book would make pricing the IPO way easier because it would reveal much more information about the shape of the demand curve. Second, this would give retail investors direct access without the allocation game being played by the intermediary banks and brokers which still (again) direct on the basis of the relative importance of customers to them.
Now is a good time to remind everyone that this isn’t hypothetical but that in fact Google did go public this way. My previous hope was for another company to have the same courage that Google did. But maybe it is time for regulators to wake up and make the direct IPO mandatory. The current gatekeepers for the process unfortunately have no interest in real change and this is an oligopolistic market where we cannot sit around and wait for competition to solve the problem.
Facebook goes public and its stock declines. Commentators write that investors should have known it was overpriced. Twitter goes public and its stock pops. Commentators write that the company left money on the table. Not nearly enough people though remark on how crazy it is that companies still go public the way they do. Three years ago I wrote a post saying that I was hoping we would see IPO 2.0 and unfortunately I am still waiting.
What do I mean? Building a complete order book upfront and allowing retail investors to participate in that process directly. This is entirely possible with today’s technology. People place limit orders to buy through their brokerage account all day long – but we use this only for companies that are already public. The same mechanism could be used to build a book before a company is public.
This would be desirable for two reasons. First, a complete book would make pricing the IPO way easier because it would reveal much more information about the shape of the demand curve. Second, this would give retail investors direct access without the allocation game being played by the intermediary banks and brokers which still (again) direct on the basis of the relative importance of customers to them.
Now is a good time to remind everyone that this isn’t hypothetical but that in fact Google did go public this way. My previous hope was for another company to have the same courage that Google did. But maybe it is time for regulators to wake up and make the direct IPO mandatory. The current gatekeepers for the process unfortunately have no interest in real change and this is an oligopolistic market where we cannot sit around and wait for competition to solve the problem.
No comments yet