But, aren't you folks web2?

This is not true. The blockchain was/is a genuine technicalogical advance. It makes things possible that weren't before. From Wikipedia:

"The implementation of the blockchain within bitcoin made it the first digital currency to solve the double-spending problem without the need of a trusted authority or central server."

Now it's certainly true that, just like MongoDB before it, overzealous people are trying to capitalize on the fad and insert "blockchain" into places where it doesn't make any sense. But there's a very important distinction between that and your statement.

However one should not overstate sociopaths. Lots of people are still going into healthcare or teaching because there's more to life than money.

This is a function of a hostile SEC and regulatory regime to the concept of decentralized fundraising. Everyone is afraid of being labeled a security. Most recently, LBRY, a decentralized YouTube-like startup that seemed to have their heart in the right place and built a functional product, was declared to be a security. But no one in government went after SBF's FTT token, which was being not only securitized but used as collateral to cover billion dollar holes in their books.

In 2017, many projects raised ETH in the form of ICOs. A lot of projects went bust. But a few turned out great, including Filecoin, Chainlink, 0xProtocol, Gnosis, and others. A retail investor in these did extremely well, earning 10-100x or more in some cases. But the 2018 bear market coupled with a reinvigorated regulatory regime dictated that projects could only safely raise via traditional VC model. This is all because of so-called "accredited investor" laws in the US that dictate that one must have a $1 million net worth or earn more than $200K a year to be considered accredited and eligible to participate in fundraises.

I think the wealth based requirement for fundraising is ludicrous and it deprives retail investors of potential life changing returns. Wealth based tests for legal privileges or rights ought to be illegal. A 100x return on investment can change someone's life. It can give someone a real chance at accruing wealth for themselves. But the current structure is designed so that progressive rounds of rich people participate in a series of fundraising, which dilutes the shares so much that by the time a company goes to IPO or a protocol releases a token, the max value has often been extracted.

After viewing Sequoia's puff piece on SBF and FTX, and the sheer number of players that invested hundreds of millions without any kind of due diligence into security models or client account protection frameworks, you have to wonder what purpose these accredited investor laws serve. Many wealthy players demonstrated brazen stupidity and blind trust. Many retail investors, meanwhile, called out the FTX scandal and were lambasted for it.

I'm old enough to remember the Web 2.0 moniker in the early 00s. The idea was similarly generic, but mostly dealt with the theme of user generated content powering advanced interactive applications with often realtime features that didn't require refreshing the page.

Web3 is and always has been about the idea of user and community sovereignty over the content that is generated. I view it as a natural extension of the web, and even though blockchain is one useful tool to achieve this, it's not the only tool. I think this movement is bigger than VCs, and I think the long term implications have yet to be felt, as everyone is still dealing with crude early iterations of the concept. It will continue to evolve, but it's not going back in the genie bottle. I'm never going to tire of the idea of having sovereignty over my money, my content, my social relationships, or my privacy.