zlacker

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+(OP)
Web3 morphed to mean "things that use a distributed blockchain." That's why we hate it. (It's not just currency either; it's anything blockchain, including NFT.)

"P2P web" needs a new name.

>>chaxor+(OP)
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.

>>chaxor+(OP)
P2P does not require blockchain or a new token. Web3 is yet another solution looking for a problem that's better solved in other ways.

>>chaxor+(OP)
I share the same sentiment as other commenters, my issue is that web3 got inextricably attached to blockchain-something. Even IPFS which I think is a very interesting idea got a "Filecoin" attached to it under the same company, while the idea of decentralisation is appealing, the blockchain side got a bad rap after multiple years of large scams being pulled using the platform.

Unfortunately most people require trust to get into something new and unknown, and the "web3" moniker has lost that ages ago. Sometimes a rebrand of the best of the crop is not a bad idea, we need a filter to all the bullshit that was bombarded around this the past decade... I was excited by it in 2012, I'm exhausted to wade through all the bullshit by now, so I simply ignore it until the signal to noise ratio gets better.

>>Tigeri+I3
> 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.

Which is also what leads to the parasocial relationships crypto enthusiasts wind up having with web 3 projects and their founders

The founders need economic incentives and the successful ones do that to great efficacy, and all the other participants have far more risk and fewer resources to make anything with the new protocol, so they dont

It requires incredible privilege to be able to launch something for free, and its equally laughable for web 3 communities to suggest that

So the market moves towards these big token sales and everything else is tolerated fallout

>>DebtDe+r9
This still doesn't make sense. P2P is web3? What does Blockchain have to do with it? Maybe git like Merkle trees can be involved a bit, which are quite similar to blockchains. I'm not understanding the hatred.