composability, that seemingly magical ability to seamlessly combine different decentralized applications and protocols, is the defining characteristic of web3, really reminds me of the power of macros in lisp. in lisp, macros aren't mere functions; they are code that writes code, allowing developers to extend the very language itself at compile time. this yields unparalleled flexibility, enabling the creation of highly specialized, domain-specific languages (dsls) within lisp. 

however, this power came with a trade-off: a tendency towards fragmentation. different projects developed their own "dialects," often incompatible, diverging from a unified standard.

everything that can work, will work | unpacking papers, musings on mathematics, and meditations on craft from an anon founder (@yhprums_law on X)

web3 adds programmable money. tokens incentivize protocol integration and collaboration, creating positive-sum games. successful protocols will be like essential lisp libraries, specializing, incentivizing use, and embracing open-source. value accrues to the network, not single entities. it's composability with financial alignment, potentially avoiding pure software's fragmentation. protocols become incentivized building blocks.

thinking about pump fun building into raydium’s space regarding building their own amm, what does that mean for defensibility or more importantly how does the permisionlessness of this space change how we think about stickiness of revenue quality from web2 to web3?

it wasn't that lisp lacked a mechanism for coordination; it's that the primary focus was on software development itself. the incentives were geared towards individual expressiveness and building powerful tools, not necessarily towards enforcing widespread adoption of a single standard across disparate projects. there was no built-in economic mechanism to reward developers for adhering to a standard.