zlacker

>>ziggab+(OP)
My understanding of web3 is based on the idea of P2P first, and removing cloud based services as much as possible. Effectively torrent, IPFS, etc. I don't understand why people conflate currency (which HN despises) with that concept, because it's not a necessary aspect. Also, this post doesn't really say anything at all about the tech, or solutions they provided in their company, but simply complains that the marketing folks didn't provide anything. Shouldn't that have been their job as a dev? You can't complain about an idea taking off that you were supposed to develop and simply didn't. If it was a bad idea, then change it and do something else.

Old man yells at cloud.

>>chaxor+u6
A friend with an existing successful "lifestyle" web business asked me for advice on potential web3 avenues for his company. We talked about it, mostly focused on the aspects you mention here. For us, that's what web3 meant, that and effectively letting the users be in control of as much as possible, enabled by blockchain tech.

We had a number of discussions about it, and found a potential route forward, but it was a very different business model from how he is making money now. In the end, he decided he didn't want to risk the money he's making now for a more uncertain path.

It was an extremely useful exercise, though, and a good way to understand what's out there and how it can be used. I think the version of web3 you mention is possible, but it's so different from how businesses operate now that it will take a very successful high profile company built from the ground up around web3 for the ideas to go anywhere. The risk just feels too high for existing companies, and even most new startups. You're turning over a lot of control and trying to succeed anyway.