Live data from Hacker News

Why Web3?

avc.com

61–70 of 706 posts

Re: Why Web3?

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The locking is in the company that controls the spec of the protocol and its reference implementation. It’s always been about getting as many people onboard as possible, this time the bait is decentralisation.

Could you explain that business model?

Find some problem that requires a ecosystem. Create this ecosystem and carry a large stake in it. Have the stake be a part of the ecosystem somehow. In the future, once the problem has a solution/ecosystem, start selling parts of the stake.

Re: Why Web3?

#62
post #3

One thing that is confusing most loud supporters of Web3 are VCs and yet: "It all comes down to the database that sits behind an application. If that database is controlled by a single entity (think company, think big tech), then enormous market power accrues to the owner/administrator of that database. If, on the other hand, the database is an open public database that is not controlled and administered by a single…

In theory, these web3 platforms would still need to function as a business to continue existing. Moving the platform onto a blockchain removes the need for centralized servers, but it necessitates massive amounts of distributed compute power to keep it going.

Every blockchain project knows that they need to incentivize their miners somehow. This is usually a combination of fees from users and new tokens minted via built-in inflation (yes, inflation ironically powers much of the crypto space and will continue to do so for a long time).

So I always aks:

1) What problem are these web3 platforms solving?

2) Who are they solving it for?

3) Are those people actually willing to pay the blockchain premium to use a web3 platform over a centralized platform?

The theory, of course, is that blockchain will evolve over time to become less resource hungry and therefore cheap enough to compete with incumbents, but that's a long way away. Many projects have started cheating by smuggling centralization into their architecture but emphasizing their blockchain and hoping nobody cares enough about the difference.

But where do VCs come into the equation? They're not setting up the mining operations that will power these businesses and collect the fees in the future. They're investing in tokens that will ostensibly be used to pay the miners in the future.

The whole game is about introducing artificial tokens, quietly giving a huge number of those tokens to founders and early investors (in exchange for actual money, of course), and then hyping the platform to the moon so everyone can cash out their tokens to a new wave of speculators.

Re: Why Web3?

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The locking is in the company that controls the spec of the protocol and its reference implementation. It’s always been about getting as many people onboard as possible, this time the bait is decentralisation.

Could you explain that business model?

You do not need to make money from the product directly. Think for example if the Bitcoin creator would get 10 cent every time someone mentioned Bitcoin. Or the easiest business model of them all, sell ads on your org site.

Re: Why Web3?

#65
post #60

I think the VCs are stuck between a rock and a hard place. It makes sense to invest in "web3" because of the potential power law returns if someone figures out how to make something useful. However, I think we've had enough time to evaluate enough of these technologies to claim that the emperor has no clothes. It may take a few years but I think every single web3 investment will have to be written off as a complete l…

> However, I think we've had enough time to evaluate enough of these technologies

"We" (humanity) started working on networking/the foundations of the internet in the 1970s, and it wasn't until late 1990s that it actually became mainstream and started providing a solution to "real" problems we had at that time. What makes you confident we can judge cryptocurrencies in just ~12 years instead of ~20 years it took for the internet to take hold?

> There is just no problem being solved there that couldn't be solved more efficiently elsewhere.

How about a network where anyone with a computer could transfer X amount of something to someone else, without having to rely on a single 3rd party? You'll say that it's not a problem in practice, but the same thing was said about email in the past.

Re: Why Web3?

#66
post #41

Can we stop talking about web3 unless we're talking about an actual spec, service or product?

Why? Web3 is an idea/concept, much like the web itself or the internet (neither are "an actual spec, service or product"), but we can still discuss the web and the internet no?

Re: Why Web3?

#67
Decentralized cryptoapps may have a point, but somehow "web3" proponents forget that there there can be decentralization without crypto at all.

Web2 succeeded because Web1 protocols haven't been developed to withstand abuse. For instance, the email protocol (Web1) hasn't got an extension that would enable receiving emails only from authorized senders. As a result, email is heavily abused by spam and phishing to a degree that only a handful of large email providers can effectively deal with it. The centralization of email services is typical for Web2.

RSS (Web1) hasn't got an extension that would enable access restriction and following. As a result, centralized proprietary ad-driven social networks (Web2) took over.

HTTP (Web1) hasn't developed a micropayment mechanism. As a result, the current internet is monetized through all-pervasive ads (Web2) with all the terrible destructive downsides that come from ad-driven media.

Re: Why Web3?

#68
I'm not convinced.

People talk grand about "permissionless data" but I fail to see any practical applications. NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures. All of the ideas about logistics tracking, deed tracking, etc etc are all rendered pointless by the oracle problem, you can get identical guarantees with digital signatures minus the blockchain.

DeFi is DOA. Gas fees are insane, "layer 2" is just a diplomatic way of saying "offchain centralization", every DeFi scheme is a money loser relative to just buying eth and waiting for a pump, "collateralized" loans where you pay coin so someone will loan you coin is not a valuable use-case to the vast majority of the population...

None of this is about giving power back to individuals, it's all about making money on mining fees and cryptocurrency speculation.

Re: Why Web3?

#69

I think it's really easy to be doubtful about web3, especially given how much BS is floating in the space, and the high amount of pure speculative trades having been made so far. I still believe that there's something there, but I'm not sure what it is. I am also unsure that the current wave of companies will be able to find it. The different between the early adoption of web2 and this current web3 cycle is that web2…

> Perhaps specific aspects of crypto (e.g. NFT used for real estate transactions) will be the killer app?

I consider myself to be very good at security, offsite encrypted backups, managing private keys, and other opsec details.

But there's no way I'd ever want the ownership of my house or cars or other property controlled by an NFT. If something happens to my private keys, am I stuck with the house forever? If my private keys are stolen, does someone else suddenly own my house because they have the NFT?

In a hypothetical world where NFTs were the token of real estate ownership, governments would simply step in and make sets of laws to override and re-issue the NFTs according to legal outcomes. They would store the overrides and other information in a centralized database that they control, and everyone would be bound to respect the overrides in the centralized database. So the NFT becomes a gimmick.

Re: Why Web3?

#70
post #3

One thing that is confusing most loud supporters of Web3 are VCs and yet: "It all comes down to the database that sits behind an application. If that database is controlled by a single entity (think company, think big tech), then enormous market power accrues to the owner/administrator of that database. If, on the other hand, the database is an open public database that is not controlled and administered by a single…

1. Because it's a ponzi scheme and they get to get in on the ground floor. See: https://mobile.twitter.com/intangiblecoins/status/1473302581...

2. Because they're rich libertarians who see crypto as a way to protect their assets from the government

Post reply on HN