Interoperability in Web3 and Rick Sachez’s Monument to Compromise
Being the Rickest Rick of them all, Rick Sanchez C-137 typically needs no associates, no allies, no advisors — no help. Yet, when it came time to build Anatomy Park, his very much the opposite of the metaverse, an amusement park built, quite literally inside a human, Rick choose partners. Even he, the Rickest Rick of them all, couldn’t build Anatomy Park alone.
While everyone contributed to Anatomy Park, Rick had his own project that was solely his vision — Pirates of the Pancreas. Rick loved Pirates of the Pancreas. It was uncompromising. His vision for the perfect amusement park attraction. Based on the feedback of others it seemed a bit, well…certainly not family friendly. Nevertheless, it was Rick’s vision.
When the first version of Anatomy Park exploded — literally — Rick assembled a new team to resurrect Anatomy Park in a new home that was less likely to explode. One of the first orders of business? Pirates of the Pancreas. The new marketing team asked themselves, “What does a pancreas do? Does it make pirates? No, it makes insulin”. Rick’s uncompromising vision was now being challenged with no one to support him. His response? He ends the call in anger calling the new Anatomy Park a “monument to compromise”.
As far as I know, emphasis on as far as I know, no one in Web3 is building an Anatomy Park. Yet, one common theme I see involves bridging and cross-ecosystem solutions. All of this collaboration certainly feels good — it means the community is working together towards a common goal! Ecosystem interoperability will give everyone a chance to grow! Well, I know three people that would disagree: John D. Rockefeller, Peter Thiel, and ME.
Rockefeller described his business philosophy with the analogy of the “American beauty rose”. If you happen to garden, you know that growing roses produces some tough decisions. You can grow a few mediocre roses, or you can grow a single, spectacular rose. Growing that single rose requires sacrificing the mediocre ones, so that the one rose can use all the resources selfishly, snuffing out the lives of the others. Peter Thiel, on the other hand, is much more blunt in his perspective on business — he’s interested in investing only in opportunities that can monopolize a market.
I don’t find myself often agreeing with Rockefeller or Thiel, but my own experience has taught me this perspective has merit. In a few past lives, I worked with interoperability standards and protocols. These projects were always viewed as the panacea to all that ailed these industries plagued by limited competition and an inability to innovate. The theory is that interoperability would ultimately drive costs down by increasing customer options cutting supplier’s ability to inflate profit margins.
Great theory. Basis in reality? No so much:
- Interoperability requires consensus among all the participants. Unfortunately this consensus isn’t as simple as PoW or PoS. Instead, it requires agreement between business ventures that have different goals — selfish goals — goals of their members and investors. The participants are competitors in the same market. One might lobby for a solution that favors them and weakens their competitor. This is a LONG process. And what is time? MONEY.
- This excruciatingly long process finally leads to codified solution to achieve interoperability. Since everyone had already optimized their solutions for THEIR use case, they must now do additional work to meet the interoperability requirements. MORE money.
- There’s the key word — OPTIMIZATION. Everyone had a different solution because they were trying to solve a different problem. It is now more difficult to optimize AND be interoperable. End result? A less effective product.
- Before this interoperability nirvana, any product could develop their solution per their vision. Now, they have to consider the impact of making changes that would break interoperability. Being interoperable IS a limitation.
- What happens when the market changes? Solutions must react. But, the interoperability standard is etched in stone and requires consensus — the hard one — to make changes to the standard. But the market is changing now! We must react! Participants will weigh is it worth it to them, to sacrifice interoperability to chase market demands. If they don’t, they must wait until the interoperability standard reacts as well. STIFLED and SLOWED innovation.
Or as Rick Sanchez so eloquently described the new vision for Pirates of the Pancreas — A MONUMENT TO COMPROMISE. Here are some questions everyone in Web3 should ask themselves:
- How many of these ecosystems will survive longterm?
- How many of these ecosystems will survive shorterm?
- Which ecosystem allows me to optimize my solution?
- How does collaboration impact my ability to optimize?
- Does interoperability drive unnecessary inefficiency?
As the founder of Mode3DAO, these are questions I ponder regularly. How do we build tools to make DAOs more efficient and effective? Where is the compromise threshold? What happens if you pick the wrong ecosystem? Do we have to build for all ecosystems? Is it antithetical to the ethos of DAOs to advocate for selfish solutions? If you’re pondering similar questions, let’s talk.
Join Coinmonks Telegram Channel and Youtube Channel learn about crypto trading and investing
