Web3? I have my DAOts

If you view 'decentralization' as a bucket of technologies underpinned by cryptographic primitives and blockchains, it doesn't.

This is similar to other technologies like cash, paper, and computers* which also don't, as technological phenomena, implicitly include censorship as a feature.

*it looks like consumer computing is moving away from general 'free' computing to ASICs from folks like Apple which likely will include built-in censorship features moving forward.

that Web2 VS Web3 schema pretty much summarize what's wrong with the new internet based on brand identities instead of technical merits.

A brief rebuttal:

- Twitter can censor any account or Tweet: yes, but Twitter is not the web, you can host your own tweets, even for free.

- Web3 tweets are better because decentralized: translations -> your thought are going to be forever visible to everybody and not even the author will be able to remove them. Of course any of those new shiny web3 logs can fail and everything can disappear with them.

- Payment services may decide to not allow payments: Web3 payments can do the same. There is nothing that forces me to accept a payment and if that was true, that would be a problem. I __do want__ to refuse payments from criminals and I do wanna know if someone is.

- servers for gig economy may go down. web3 servers can go down as well, they are made of hardware and maintained by people too. If, for example, Uber can't keep their servers running despite their profits depend on them, imagine what would happen if Uber was running on someone else's node who DGAF if they lose money or not...

Now imagine what would happen to me, a completely unknown anonymous individual, with no power.

What happens if something goes wrong and "my income is affected"?

Who is responsible?

Who can I sue in case the SLA in the agreement haven't been guaranteed?

Will "the decentralized network of 1000s of computers" reimburse me?

I think the problem with the current state of Web3 is that it really doesn't seem to solve meaningful, mainstream problems yet.

Even the most widely accepted use case which is crypto-currency fails to break out of the theoretical value outlined in the different white papers. I own several crypto-currencies and there hasn't been a single moment in which I thought of buying something with a crypto-currency. I have crypto-currencies because I'm speculating in their asset class value, not necessarily because I'm betting on their utility.

Now, I know that crypto coins are indeed used in real service/product transactions, but I think there's a difference between the present economical use of cryptos and its potential mainstream use where cryptos can effectively replace fiat currencies in super wide economic settings.

I believe that Web3 would happen but I honestly can't see a clear trajectory for Cryptos, NFTs, DAOs etc to become effective instruments that can replace existing Web2 instruments.

In fact the reason why everything in Web3 feels like BS right now is because everything in this space uses Web2 distribution. People promoting NFTs on Twitter feels a little bit like someone faxing you a webpage. Owning the rights to a random JPEG is something that feels too abstracted from the present Web2 mental model and value proposition.

NFTs don't necessarily represent ownership of the underlying asset.

They're like minting a commemorative coin celebrating the asset, and only minting a single coin. The coin does not represent ownership of the asset. It's just...a coin. A token. Supposedly, the uniqueness gives it value, but if I decide to record a single fart, that fart is unique, but the uniqueness does not inherently create value.

An NFT for the Mona Lisa caries no benefits or rights, other than saying "I own the NFT for the Mona Lisa". It's inherently worthless, with a supposed value being created from absolutely nothing.

Anyone buying NFTs either doesn't know what they're actually paying for, or thinks they're going to be able to find a greater fool who will eventually be willing to pay more.

There's a kool-aide concern here, which is: to play in the web3 world, you seem to need to have either a LOT of capital that is fine to lose or have access to this small community. The communities I've joined are indistinguishable from Twitch communities where there's a lot of bro high-fives and mutual appreciation for the riches being invented, not much concern for what the side effects might be. And because there's an advantage in staking, people who can afford to just leave money in these volatile currencies get richer. Not saying this is really any different than the world in general, but it seems like web3 advocates paint a picture of "disruption" that feels more like "entrenchment" from an economic vantage.