91–100 of 706 posts
I am looking for anyone interested in the domain Web3.net I am the founder of OpenDomain- we have contributed domains worth millions to open source and other causes. All for Free.
Could you help me out on this?
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…
If the project/token is successful, the monetary value of the token rises, which funds the development teams and helps VCs to get a return.
So as always, big capital gets the early access, and us mortal do not.
Still, for a serious project it's not as bad as it sounds. It could still end up meaning the project is 75% community owned, rather than the 0% in a fully central organization.
You should apply scrutiny though to the "decentralized" claim. Most web3 projects aren't very decentralized at all.
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…
It is possible to buy crypto purely peer to peer e.g just 2 people posting on a forum. Yet, most people buy it on an exchange and pay the transaction fees.
It is possible to set up a wordpress server on your home PC or a cheap VPS, yet most people buy it off wordpress.com
It is possible to replicate an ETF with relatively low effort by just looking up their holdings every month and rebalancing, yet most people pay the ETF fees.
It is possible to make great coffee at home yet people go to coffee shops.
---
The main idea IMO is just relying on people to be willing to buy into whatever new thing has a lot of marketing and hype behind it. They consistently do. Even if web3 is a truly open system, people will remain too apathetic to learn how that system works - they will just go to the most popular platform and pay the fee.
---
The other angle IMO is that banks and tradfi in a lot of places really do suck hard. They don't need to innovate at all and rarely do. The only reason they don't have competition is piles of red tape, regulation, lobbying, corruption etc. All it takes is someone to make a half-decent website/app that makes things a little better (e.g Robinhood) and crypto is a way to do that while getting around all the old regulation.
> Frankly, it is all too much for me. Same. I've been actively unfollowing people on Twitter every day to clean my feeds of it. I'm not anti-web3 or anti-crypto, but I definitely don't need to read the same rhetoric from 100 people a day. Decentralized trust could be great, but I wonder how much time actually needs to be spent talking about it vs. actually building it...
This is the tell for me that most of the people promoting it are just trying to find buyers for their tokens: there's tons of marketing for things which either don't exist at all or offer a worse experience than the status quo, and it's very rare to find someone who clearly understands the problem and how we got there. For example, we started with a more decentralized web than we have now — any conversation about how to go in a different direction needs to be based on the economic factors which produced the current state.
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"…
> NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures I'm not one to ever defend NFTs, but this is not right. Suppose I bought an extremely trendy natural number k ∈ ℤ and I have a signature σ from its inventor that says "doomrobo owns k". Suppose in a year the trend has passed and I'd like to sell k. How do I transfer ownership to someone else? Clearly sending σ doesn't suffice, since σ is public.…
Let's say I create a piece of digital art and create an NFT out of it. The NFT somehow starts increasing in value. Then I copy my original digital art-asset and perhaps use a Photo-Shop filter to make it have a different hue. I turn that into another NFT. And I keep on doing this for all colors of the rainbow.
What prevents me from creating new NFTs with the same or slightly modified underlying digital asset?
The crux of web3 is the UX, last mile, and/or listing problem: even if you, hypothetically, could find a decentralized solution for every centralized one, the last interface to this mechanism will be centralized. Your UI (e.g. mobile app) is centralized so the best UI will eventually win because most end users care about UX or will enter this interface because they see a well paid ad. If this UI (e.g. a decentralized…
Why would UI need to be centralized? Even in normal SPAs the client is making most of the work, the UI is fairly trivial to decentralize and there were a few examples on hn already.
Now, Uber^2 publishes a great mobile app, the mobile app is obviously centralized and they can decide to use or not and how to use the decentralized mechanism because they are the winners as the UX.
Isn't this obvious?
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"…
> NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures I'm not one to ever defend NFTs, but this is not right. Suppose I bought an extremely trendy natural number k ∈ ℤ and I have a signature σ from its inventor that says "doomrobo owns k". Suppose in a year the trend has passed and I'd like to sell k. How do I transfer ownership to someone else? Clearly sending σ doesn't suffice, since σ is public.…