> Does a “Web3” that depends on Twitter for its marketing and coordination channel really deserve the name? You might say, “Oh, just wait; Web3 will make a Twit

> Does a “Web3” that depends on Twitter for its marketing and coordination channel really deserve the name? You might say, “Oh, just wait; Web3 will make a Twitter of its own.” No, it won’t. Such a platform would be useless to Web3, because there would be no one there to recruit Web 2.0, while nebulous, is reasonably defined as "the web as an application platform". Web 1.0 is for documents; static. Web 2.0 couldn't exist without 1.0; it took HTML, CSS, added JavaScript (well, argue the term "added", its nebulous, we're speaking in broad terms), and "evolved" it (or "devolved" depending on who you ask) to support much deeper user interaction and productivity. Moreover; Web 1.0 is still right here. It didn't go anywhere. Its as easy as its always been to publish a static site with just HTML. Anyone on the Web3 side who argues "P2P or Nothing" is, frankly, just as pointless as someone on the other side who says "haha, all your marketing is on Web2 Twitter, you people can't even build a social network!". Its not a zero sum game, despite what the semver naming scheme asserts (and let's be fair: Web2 started it! Web3 just adopted their inaccuracy). Really love a lot of the other points made here, though. Lots of things to ponder over. > The money thing confounds evaluation; it’s like trying to look at a star next to the sun [...] would you still be curious about Web3 if those currencies were worthless, in dollar terms? [...] The Ethereum Virtual Machine, humming heart of Web3, is a computer that charges you many dollars to execute a very small program very slowly. [...] They were about other things — science and coffee pots, links and camera lenses — while Web3 is, to a first approximation, about Web3. I think a lot about sort-of the thrust of all these points. Web3/ETH/etc are super interesting from a technical angle, but what "real" work are they accomplishing? First thing people point to: DeFi. But that's self-referential, as he says, and moreover, finance sucks; its important, but its fake. Where's the real productivity in Web3? Well, the Second thing; ETH VM, which is a joke. NFTs feel like a "third" large use-case of Web3, and could be the first interesting one, as a way to create digital scarcity. I'm not sure if its good or bad, but it is, at least, Natural, and Interesting. But its still self-referential and rooted in finance. Point being, I think I would be far, far more interested in Web3 if it actually wasn't so mired in finance. I love his wording: its like trying to look at a [planet] next to the sun. But I'm also convinced that it wouldn't exist without its roots in finance; that's how you get people interested.