The article, despite a "what is web3 anyway" section doesn't get any closer to concretely explaining why anyone would want web3 or what we would do with it. I see why unscrupulous VCs and developers want it, but there are no reasons a regular consumer would (just some vague "principles"). If this was a pitch, you'd expect people to say "so what?". If it does a concrete thing that a non "crypto investor" would care about, explain that thing and maybe people will use it. If in exchange for investing in whatever shitcoin someone is promoting I get to feel warm about "immutability" and "verifiability" and whatever while I have to pay some shitcoin every time I check my email, I don't see why I'd use it. It it's useful, it should be really easy to explain how.
So it's like BitTorrent but you have to pay to use it? It still doesn't get at a concrete use. That's been the problem with blockchain from day 1, it's interesting, there just isn't anything you actually need it for.
I think my point might have been missed. Web3 doesn’t require blockchain, paying to use it, tokens, etc. As coined the term merely means internet services that are more robust. People that prefer web2 (paying for Netflix) will continue to use it and people that prefer web3 (stuff like torrenting)
Just because you don’t see a use for blockchain technology doesn’t mean there isn’t one for somebody on the other side of the world in different circumstances.
> Web3 doesn’t require blockchain, paying to use it, tokens, etc.
You would get the opposite impression reading anything at all about web3, including the summary on wikipedia.
> As coined the term merely means internet services that are more robust.
And currently has the reputation of the opposite of robust...
> People that prefer web2 (paying for Netflix) will continue to use it and people that prefer web3 (stuff like torrenting)
Netflix introduced streaming in 2007 and bittorrent introduced torrenting in 2001 (piratebay in 2003).
> I think my point might have been missed.
It's probably because you're not really addressing anyone's concerns. Also hand waving in vague/dubious/nonsensical implications/metaphors like "Torrenting was good, therefor web3 is good". It comes across like a salesman who'll tell you anything just to make the sale.
> Just because you don’t see a use for blockchain technology doesn’t mean there isn’t one for somebody on the other side of the world in different circumstances.
We know scammers and artificial scarcity exist. We just think these things are objectively bad.
The author should FULLY disclose that he is working as a product marketer for this VC backed token [0].
Any blockchain / hashgraph public or even private [1] and NFTs are still a scam. There is still no usecase in web3.
[0] https://twitter.com/gehrigkunz
[1] https://medium.com/@johny.codes/private-blockchains-even-wor...