Laura Shin's book The Cryptopians: Idealism, Greed, Lies, and the Making of the First Big Cryptocurrency Craze ought to be read by anyone interested in this space due to the importance of its topic - the founding of Ethereum, the most significant smart contract blockchain there is - and the depth of the author's research.
The 'depth' of research is also, unfortunately, the reason the book 'only' scores a 3-star, despite my desperately wanting to give it more. Why do I say this? Because in my view there is a real dearth of evidence-based reporting on the origins, histories and characters behind blockchains and this could have perfectly filled that gap.
While undoubtedly the huge volumes of information Shin collected are vital for accuracy, the use of so much 'he said, she said' evidence from sources, repeated verbatim, is exceptionally taxing. This book would have benefited strongly from a severe edit that removed a lot of the 'working' (for want of a better word) and placed it into annexes, online repositories and so on. This would have ensured the key story - which is fascinating and relevant - remained the star of the show. As it is, the reader gets rapidly bogged down in nuanced detailing of the different versions of events from multiple points of view. There is, in short, a real lack of synthesis to the underlying evidence that surprised me for an experienced reporter.
A couple more features also started to grate as I worked through this lengthy book. Shin repeatedly insists on quoting price rises in text: "ETH didn't rally again from its mid-June ... high of more than $414 until November ... Six days later, ETH busted through $500 ... hit an all-time high of more than $657 and, the day after, broke a new record at just shy of $748" and so on and so on. Why not just use a graph? Or tell us the endpoints or the key information?
Something a lot of writers do but that always irritates is overwrought physical descriptions of 'new characters', e.g. "Another Skype participant was Taylor Gerring, a compact, outgoing Chicago-based developer with an easy, boyish smile and laugh lines around his eyes ...". This goes much bigger than Shin, but why do authors insist on this? I just don't care - plus there's something oddly craniology/phrenology-esque about all this, as if we can infer a person's character from their physical appearance. Lastly, the writing can be just straight-up clunky and almost childish at times: "In free-wheeling conversations, the newly acquainted group realised the vast majority of them had tried psychedelics, an unusual situation given the drugs' illegal status".
All of which may sound extremely negative, but despite being able to point to so many things that could be better about this book, it is still a very worthwhile read. If you can get past the excess of raw detail, as well as a few more minor flaws, this book will reward you with a much better understanding of the social context and people behind the genesis of one of the most important technologies we live with today. What you learn - about how haphazard and chaotic the entire crypto scene is - will either shock you or re-enforce your biases, but you will likely never look at decentralised technologies quite the same way again.