This is a great perspective.

If anything, I'd think that crypto in 2010 had all the hallmarks of a new wave as described. The concept was open to anyone who wanted to tinker with it. It had to be sold to skeptical consumers by wildcat startups. It certainly had the potential to upend the financial industry, but no incumbent would touch it. Yet it did end up more or less being sucked into the gravity well of the incumbents, although in the case of crypto we very much need to consider governments which control the money supply to be the heavyweights, even more so than banks and lenders.

Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I'm not sure any new innovation now can escape the gravitational nexus of the duopoly of government and incumbent tech, in a way that would lead to the kind of wild growth and experimentation we had with microprocessors in the 70s.

We had some guy named Satoshi write a paper that basically handed the keys to anyone who wanted to experiment - and 17 years later, after a significant bubble, that wave has done very little to change the status quo.

I suppose if someone released a DIY genome editor or protein folding was solved or, like, a working Mr. Fusion device showed up on Kickstarter, or a "feed"/"seed" a la the Diamond Age made it possible to turn dirt into anything you wanted, or a FTL drive came out of someone's garage or something... yeah. That would seriously upset the incumbents. But even with sci-fi stuff like that, what's the moat once you make your findings public anymore? This article suggests that the only serious moat has ever been that large companies are slowed down by inertia and take some time to spin up once their internal cultures go from deriding something to deciding it's essential.

How do we know if we have stalled to the point that no one will come along and be the next Amazon or Google, until 50 years from now we see that no one did?