I’m arguing that similar to how firms minimize externalities associated with offering a product (search and information costs, bargaining costs, and policing and enforcement costs), Bitcoin does the same.
It doesn’t, though. If you took the bitcoin network and you really wanted to minimize infrastructure costs, you’d remove the blockchain altogether and just have 1 mining data center with a web API to submit and read transactions.
Then, to decrease costs further, you’d declare officially what “Bitcoin” was so that money would not be wasted on forks (building infrastructure to handle forks, spending years of person-hours debating the merits of each fork, etc.).
To make it even more efficient, you’d make the code closed-source to make it harder for incumbents to compete so you can save money on fending off the competition.
In short, there is a LOT of costs that Bitcoin could shave off if it was actually a firm. It being decentralized makes it way more expensive
the miners in Bitcoin are the only workers that have job security
And 99% of the miners are firms… So isn’t this a counterpoint to your thesis more than supporting evidence?
Giving ownership of the product to the users is just the first step
In what way do owners of Kin own the Kik messenger app (their product)?
All Kin is is a token to transact on Kik, just like Microsoft Points or Airmiles. If Kik decides one day to also accept Bitcoin or USD, it can do it and all owners of Kin are shit out of luck. They have no say/ownership in the product whatsoever.
Further, Ted Livingston let it slip that this wasn’t really about giving power to users through decentralization, it’s just a way to compete with Facebook.