Is the following a good analogy?
1. The Internet aspires to be neutral infrastructure for communication.
2. Permissionless blockchains aspire to be neutral infrastructure for computation.

Head of research at a16z crypto.
Professor, Columbia University.

you probably don’t think about liquidity enough // it is what it is  // build value, not valuation

| 🎩  |  ↑  |  ⌐◨-◨

Agreed, in that the slides mention right to use/right to exlude but not right to transfer. Like you say, I'm worried that shifts the emphasis too much toward markets/price/currencies/etc. Current plan is to say "of course once you have ownership you have markets etc., but let me tell you about something less obvious"

Feels like it's missing something about property rights/value transfer.

Might push it into a financialization convo unintentionally

Yup, absolutely. But gotta take it one step at a time!
(Btw I'm not sure the importance of neutral communication infrastructure was so obvious for the first 20-30 years of the Internet)

Putting myself in the skeptic’s shoes, I would ask a follow up about why we need neutral computation (it’s not as obvious as needing neutral communication). But otherwise, I think this is a great analogy!

More accurate but way too technical/intimidating for a general audience

I prefer "state machine" over "infrastructure for computation":

- trust-minimized state machine.
- neutral state machine.

Do you find this less/more accurate?

Research at cyber.fund | prev mathematician | artofkot.xyz

My experience has been that non-crypto computer scientists find the term "coordination" to be too abstract and vague. I could imagine it working well for non-academic/non-CS audiences, though, it has an appealing grandness to it

Would suggest to substitute computation for coordination — this got to be the core value-prop in my mind, otherwise distributed computation wouldn’t be that valuable.

A single computer is owned by someone. Permissionless consensus is the justification for viewing a blockchain protocol as a ownerless (i.e., neutral) computer

how is captured the consensus aspect? a single computer isn’t also a neutral infrastructure for computation?

So this could be too nitpicky / unsexy for public audience, but I think I would say:

"
1. The Internet aspires to be neutral infrastructure for *digital communication*

2. Permissionless blockchains aspire to be neutral infrastructure for *digital records*
"