Absolutely agree that workers should share in the upside of these platforms.
But a state that fails at basic functions like police, fire, public health, education, sanitation isn’t capable of competent regulation. That’s why AB5 was a disaster.
There is a better way, though...
But a state that fails at basic functions like police, fire, public health, education, sanitation isn’t capable of competent regulation. That’s why AB5 was a disaster.
There is a better way, though...
https://twitter.com/ljin18/status/1319293443386920966
I’m very sympathetic to @ljin18 and @dumplicious’s points about making sure workers share upside.
Had Uber been able to give equity to all 1M drivers, perhaps they’d be a $100B company with $50B owned by drivers at ~$50k/driver.
A happier and economically aligned workforce.
Had Uber been able to give equity to all 1M drivers, perhaps they’d be a $100B company with $50B owned by drivers at ~$50k/driver.
A happier and economically aligned workforce.
So what eventually happens is that all these platforms get turned into crypto protocols.
Every rider and driver now share in the upside. And due to encryption, voluntary transactions between two parties can no longer be surveilled and interdicted by the state.
Every rider and driver now share in the upside. And due to encryption, voluntary transactions between two parties can no longer be surveilled and interdicted by the state.
A key reason this is feasible: ride-sharing interfaces haven’t changed in years.
That means you can freeze the frontend and decentralize the backend. Of course, the protocol version of Uber would be more complex, just like Bitcoin was more complex than PayPal. But it would win.
That means you can freeze the frontend and decentralize the backend. Of course, the protocol version of Uber would be more complex, just like Bitcoin was more complex than PayPal. But it would win.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
