I want to talk to ChatGPT about books—granularly reference, make outlines, debate core points, expand on topics, etc.

I would easily pay $20 per book to do this. Why can't OpenAI facilitate that txn, and why wouldn't authors be open to it?

The alternative (pirating) feels like limewire before iTunes came around.

design @splits | /wireframe /latenightcrew /event-pass /feud

Its a frustration of mine as well. I'd especially like to query and discuss across all the books in my library. 

I bet it becomes possible once books onchain becomes a thing.

Operator turned investor. Day job in TradFi. Exploring the future of onchain social investing @crossroads.  🟪

Why does crypto have anything to do with it?

Technically, Web2 platforms could support AI queries for books - but it would introduce new costs and cut into margins. It’s unclear it would boost sales unless it becomes table stakes across the industry.

Maybe it happens. But large-scale adoption is more likely to come from new entrants. An onchain-native player would have more tools for query-level rev share than a Web2 platform like Amazon could realistically support, making it more palatable to authors and publishers

I agree on the premium. Rolling it out would require renegotiating all publisher contracts, and depending on the scope, additional security features. Putting on my 'large corporate' hat, I don’t see most executive teams getting excited enough about the incremental revenue to justify the operating cost and execution risk. By “table stakes,” I mean if Kindle launched it, others would follow to stay feature-competitive.

A non-web3 newcomer would face a steep climb - competing head-to-head with incumbents in publisher negotiations while also building brand and market share against Amazon and Google. 

In contrast, an onchain P2P + AI-native reading/publishing model offers a significantly differentiated value prop for both authors and readers, attracting a unique early audience. The TAM is smaller today, but the long-term potential is much larger. With the right financial backers, a newcomer could break through and reshape the industry over the course of 15 years. This is personally where I'd put my money.

Well my guess is people who want this would pay a premium, so while over time yes it would cannibalize, I think it would still be net positive for the industry no? Not sure what you mean re "table stakes".

And agree with your point on new entrants. I just don't understand why the new entrant needs to be onchain.