3 ms·

Don't call it Web 3.0 - these projects have proven very little to imply they are the true next progression of the "Web." Most of the use-cases don't even espec

Don't call it Web 3.0 - these projects have proven very little to imply they are the true next progression of the "Web." Most of the use-cases don't even especially benefit from decentralization. The main reason they have blockchains and coins is so the project founders can cash out the moment they release a mainnet (thus getting paid by the fans they hype up.) Look at dfinity (ICP) for a recent example. First week or two it was selling for as high as $600ish and as low as almost $150. Now it goes for $44. Someone is always holding the founders' bag - their newfound cash came from somewhere! EDIT: upon googling, it appears dfinity is getting sued for this potential pump and dump

nscalf 5y ago
That may be a fair criticism of the naming. My point was more that it doesn't make sense to be called cryptocurrency, and less that it's the true next progression of the web. With regards to the cash outs, I think there's probably an argument to be made about web 1.0 and 2.0 companies that were highly unprofitable with no way to ever become profitable. There were investors propping up companies with bad fundamentals, IPO'ing, cashing out, and in the end the tech bubble pops and takes down the market and retail investors with it. Crypto definitely does it more quickly and violently, but it's not a crypto specific phenomenon.
- whateveracct 5y ago
  True that it isn't crypto specific.