5 ms·

Jack Dorsey caused an uproar with a bizarre Web3 Twitter rant

53 points by riffic 5y ago

quink 5y ago
"bizarre" Is this the fallacy known as "Appeal to ridicule"?
- pretendscholar 5y ago
  Its a fallacy if you try to present it as a logical refutation to an argument. Using bizarre as a descriptive term for an action while not passing it off as a rebuttal is a matter of opinion.
jollybean 5y ago
Everything from the bitcoin clock, to the setting, to the dishes, the hair, the nose-ring - and especially the Tweets - is all personal brand posturing.
ashwagary 5y ago
Nothing bizzare about the rant attacking web3's centralization problem, everything he said was true.
hackingforfun 5y ago
I made a submission [1] about this today too, but it didn't generate any comments. I was hoping to have a discussion regarding how Bitcoin / crypto / web3 is often grouped into one category. Jack Dorsey is making a distinction here that they are not the same thing. This specific tweet [2] sticks out for me: > You don’t own “web3.” > The VCs and their LPs do. It will never escape their incentives. It’s ultimately a centralized entity with a different label. > Know what you’re getting into… I know there are concerns with Bitcoin's energy consumption, but I still think it's one of the most innovative things to come in the last decade, and I don't think it should be grouped with things like NFTs, etc. I like some other altcoins, like Ethereum and some other smart contract platforms, so I'm not just a Bitcoin maximalist. However, personally I think NFTs are a lot of hype. I don't think Bitcoin is the same as that. There were no early VC investors in Bitcoin (with the exception of Tim Draper, but he wasn't invested from the start of the network). Now the VCs are looking for the next big altcoin and investing in that. I.e. some altcoins that I even think have potential, like Solana, are also heavily VC backed. In that regard people should also know what they are getting into. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29642794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29642794 [2] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1473139010197508098 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1473139010197508098
- cam0 5y ago
  Just because there weren't early VCs into bitcoin doesn't mean that most BTC is distributed fairly amongst a large portion of people. Most BTC seems to be owned and controlled by a fairly small concentration of wealthy people at this point. It will do no good for average people, so it shouldn't be hyped as "a form of "freedom" or "revolution" or anything of that sort - it's just another asset for wealthy people to buy up.
  - hndamien 5y ago
    Isn't this always going to be the case with money, especially hard money. Partially due to the definition of "wealthy"? The money appears to be unfairly distributed amongst the wealthy people. Yes! Thats how money works! If you have a lot of it, guess what, you are now a wealthy person.
    - cam0 5y ago
      Absolutely, but the bitcoin maximalists (including Jack Dorsey) should stop evangelizing it as the solution to so many societal problems when it's indistinguishable from any other asset at this point.
      - hndamien 5y ago
        There is a fundamental. difference to why they evangelise this as correcting a root problem of fiat money. Fiat money causes price distortion and monetisation of non-monetary assets. It also acts as a constant handbrake of people heavily reliant on holding the medium of exchange - most notably poorer people, salary earners. Fixing this removes a very large systemic impediment to more universally fair system (not equal distribution) to achieve prosperity and social mobility. It isn't a panacea, but a significant improvement on the status quo.
        cam0 5y ago
        I don't disagree with the problem statement. I just disagree with the proposed solution. How is an expensive asset supposed to help poor people?
jjulius 5y ago
There's a certain irony here given that his massive wealth is because of VCs and his involvement with them (read: designing a product whose focus was returning gains on their investment) on Web 2.0. I don't disagree with the point he's making here, and I'll acquiesce that his involvement with VCs/Web 2.0 gives him a unique perspective, but I just don't want to hear from someone who absolutely has been a huge part of the problem for the last decade or more.
- saurik 5y ago
  But is he claiming anywhere that Web 2.0 was not like that? Like, I see this as "you are no better than I: I can see through your facade because you are just doing what we did, despite claiming otherwise".
- cam0 5y ago
  I think the same should be said of Chris Dixon / a16z / pretty much every VC-turned-cryptoEnthusiast. I hate hearing them talk about making things better for people in 3rd world countries and helping starving artists - it's all a joke. These guys have raised billions of dollars from some of the wealthiest and most powerful institutions and families to invest in this "decentralized future", and certainly not to help 3rd world citizens and artists.
  - ChainOfFools 5y ago
    exactly. people who have made an identity and a fortune from concentrating wealth and influence around themselves have absolutely no interest in "decentralizing" it. decentralization is for thee and not for me
  - dcl 5y ago
    Chris Dixon (https://twitter.com/cdixon https://twitter.com/cdixon) posts some particularly outrageous and as far as I'm concerned, disingenuous comments on this topic. I would be ashamed to be associated with him.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    I don't see the evidence of him being disingenuous..
ALittleLight 5y ago
Twitter too is some VC guided money making attempt. Two main differences. First, Twitter doesn't hide that fact. Second, Twitter actually delivers a useful product. Ethereum et al are pretty big practical failures. I have some Ethereum from way back when I bought some Urbit stuff and recently I tried using an Ethereum "web3 defi" thing. Huge transfer fees to the point where I'd either have to be making large transactions or it's not worthwhile in the slightest. Unusable as money and all smart contracts seem to be ways of making different kinds of coins.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>recently I tried using an Ethereum "web3 defi" thing. Huge transfer fees to the point where I'd either have to be making large transactions or it's not worthwhile in the slightest Ethereum is only economical to use for huge financial transactions, like transferring $100,000 in USDC, or succinct, consensus critical programs, like zk-S[NT]ARK proofs for batched account updates. The latter enables economical every day use of Ethereum layer 1 consensus via layer 2 platforms: https://l2beat.com https://l2beat.com
jawerty 5y ago
He's right. Say what you will about his own past/present with VCs but the content of what he's saying is true. Centralization isn't something you can out-engineer with incentive structures it's deeply human.
dpweb 5y ago
I don't get the shock that few own most of the btc. It's awarded in perfect proportion to your means to invest in creating it. Even a small time gold miner in the 1860s could possibly win an outsized reward, given his available resources. That's impossible w btc.
SMVS 5y ago
Brave opinions from a guy whose legacy at Twitter was buying the next big thing and then closing it down. Vine, Periscope, Quill etc etc. Guy is a fucking idiot. Someone tell him to stay out of Africa. We don't want him.
sascha_sl 5y ago
Great take, honestly. Web3 is essentially just a more convoluted way to federate based on a decentralized database. But in platform capitalism, there are zero incentives to federate. For instance, your gaming NFT will work with one publisher, likely only in one game (have an NFT for Generic Football Game 2021? It'll be useless in 2022, I promise). It will mostly be exploited for the promise of what it could be and not for practical reasons. Also because we already build decentralized federated systems without decentralized consensus. Like the Fediverse. It's all smoke and mirrors.
peanut_worm 5y ago
There is nothing more out of touch than a news article about a tweet lol. What about this was “bizarre”?
xyzzy21 5y ago
He probably speaks from personal experience with Twitter. Just read his body language over the last few years. I still don't trust anyone who willingly agrees to work for a company that has committed to anti-USA, anti-liberty, anti-freedom and other tyrannical rules and procedures. I still won't hire anyone with "Twitter" on their resume because if they couldn't make the moral and ethical judgement to leave; they are fundamentally compromised and should never be trusted again. Black listed!!

53 points by riffic 5y ago

quink 5y ago

"bizarre" Is this the fallacy known as "Appeal to ridicule"?

pretendscholar 5y ago
Its a fallacy if you try to present it as a logical refutation to an argument. Using bizarre as a descriptive term for an action while not passing it off as a rebuttal is a matter of opinion.

jollybean 5y ago

Everything from the bitcoin clock, to the setting, to the dishes, the hair, the nose-ring - and especially the Tweets - is all personal brand posturing.

ashwagary 5y ago

Nothing bizzare about the rant attacking web3's centralization problem, everything he said was true.

hackingforfun 5y ago

I made a submission [1] about this today too, but it didn't generate any comments. I was hoping to have a discussion regarding how Bitcoin / crypto / web3 is often grouped into one category. Jack Dorsey is making a distinction here that they are not the same thing. This specific tweet [2] sticks out for me: > You don’t own “web3.” > The VCs and their LPs do. It will never escape their incentives. It’s ultimately a centralized entity with a different label. > Know what you’re getting into… I know there are concerns with Bitcoin's energy consumption, but I still think it's one of the most innovative things to come in the last decade, and I don't think it should be grouped with things like NFTs, etc. I like some other altcoins, like Ethereum and some other smart contract platforms, so I'm not just a Bitcoin maximalist. However, personally I think NFTs are a lot of hype. I don't think Bitcoin is the same as that. There were no early VC investors in Bitcoin (with the exception of Tim Draper, but he wasn't invested from the start of the network). Now the VCs are looking for the next big altcoin and investing in that. I.e. some altcoins that I even think have potential, like Solana, are also heavily VC backed. In that regard people should also know what they are getting into. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29642794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29642794 [2] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1473139010197508098 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1473139010197508098

cam0 5y ago
Just because there weren't early VCs into bitcoin doesn't mean that most BTC is distributed fairly amongst a large portion of people. Most BTC seems to be owned and controlled by a fairly small concentration of wealthy people at this point. It will do no good for average people, so it shouldn't be hyped as "a form of "freedom" or "revolution" or anything of that sort - it's just another asset for wealthy people to buy up.
- hndamien 5y ago
  Isn't this always going to be the case with money, especially hard money. Partially due to the definition of "wealthy"? The money appears to be unfairly distributed amongst the wealthy people. Yes! Thats how money works! If you have a lot of it, guess what, you are now a wealthy person.
  - cam0 5y ago
    Absolutely, but the bitcoin maximalists (including Jack Dorsey) should stop evangelizing it as the solution to so many societal problems when it's indistinguishable from any other asset at this point.
    - hndamien 5y ago
      There is a fundamental. difference to why they evangelise this as correcting a root problem of fiat money. Fiat money causes price distortion and monetisation of non-monetary assets. It also acts as a constant handbrake of people heavily reliant on holding the medium of exchange - most notably poorer people, salary earners. Fixing this removes a very large systemic impediment to more universally fair system (not equal distribution) to achieve prosperity and social mobility. It isn't a panacea, but a significant improvement on the status quo.
      - cam0 5y ago
        I don't disagree with the problem statement. I just disagree with the proposed solution. How is an expensive asset supposed to help poor people?

jjulius 5y ago

There's a certain irony here given that his massive wealth is because of VCs and his involvement with them (read: designing a product whose focus was returning gains on their investment) on Web 2.0. I don't disagree with the point he's making here, and I'll acquiesce that his involvement with VCs/Web 2.0 gives him a unique perspective, but I just don't want to hear from someone who absolutely has been a huge part of the problem for the last decade or more.

saurik 5y ago
But is he claiming anywhere that Web 2.0 was not like that? Like, I see this as "you are no better than I: I can see through your facade because you are just doing what we did, despite claiming otherwise".
cam0 5y ago
I think the same should be said of Chris Dixon / a16z / pretty much every VC-turned-cryptoEnthusiast. I hate hearing them talk about making things better for people in 3rd world countries and helping starving artists - it's all a joke. These guys have raised billions of dollars from some of the wealthiest and most powerful institutions and families to invest in this "decentralized future", and certainly not to help 3rd world citizens and artists.
- ChainOfFools 5y ago
  exactly. people who have made an identity and a fortune from concentrating wealth and influence around themselves have absolutely no interest in "decentralizing" it. decentralization is for thee and not for me
- dcl 5y ago
  Chris Dixon (https://twitter.com/cdixon https://twitter.com/cdixon) posts some particularly outrageous and as far as I'm concerned, disingenuous comments on this topic. I would be ashamed to be associated with him.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  I don't see the evidence of him being disingenuous..

ALittleLight 5y ago

Twitter too is some VC guided money making attempt. Two main differences. First, Twitter doesn't hide that fact. Second, Twitter actually delivers a useful product. Ethereum et al are pretty big practical failures. I have some Ethereum from way back when I bought some Urbit stuff and recently I tried using an Ethereum "web3 defi" thing. Huge transfer fees to the point where I'd either have to be making large transactions or it's not worthwhile in the slightest. Unusable as money and all smart contracts seem to be ways of making different kinds of coins.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>recently I tried using an Ethereum "web3 defi" thing. Huge transfer fees to the point where I'd either have to be making large transactions or it's not worthwhile in the slightest Ethereum is only economical to use for huge financial transactions, like transferring $100,000 in USDC, or succinct, consensus critical programs, like zk-S[NT]ARK proofs for batched account updates. The latter enables economical every day use of Ethereum layer 1 consensus via layer 2 platforms: https://l2beat.com https://l2beat.com

jawerty 5y ago

He's right. Say what you will about his own past/present with VCs but the content of what he's saying is true. Centralization isn't something you can out-engineer with incentive structures it's deeply human.

dpweb 5y ago

I don't get the shock that few own most of the btc. It's awarded in perfect proportion to your means to invest in creating it. Even a small time gold miner in the 1860s could possibly win an outsized reward, given his available resources. That's impossible w btc.

SMVS 5y ago

Brave opinions from a guy whose legacy at Twitter was buying the next big thing and then closing it down. Vine, Periscope, Quill etc etc. Guy is a fucking idiot. Someone tell him to stay out of Africa. We don't want him.

sascha_sl 5y ago

Great take, honestly. Web3 is essentially just a more convoluted way to federate based on a decentralized database. But in platform capitalism, there are zero incentives to federate. For instance, your gaming NFT will work with one publisher, likely only in one game (have an NFT for Generic Football Game 2021? It'll be useless in 2022, I promise). It will mostly be exploited for the promise of what it could be and not for practical reasons. Also because we already build decentralized federated systems without decentralized consensus. Like the Fediverse. It's all smoke and mirrors.

peanut_worm 5y ago

There is nothing more out of touch than a news article about a tweet lol. What about this was “bizarre”?

xyzzy21 5y ago

He probably speaks from personal experience with Twitter. Just read his body language over the last few years. I still don't trust anyone who willingly agrees to work for a company that has committed to anti-USA, anti-liberty, anti-freedom and other tyrannical rules and procedures. I still won't hire anyone with "Twitter" on their resume because if they couldn't make the moral and ethical judgement to leave; they are fundamentally compromised and should never be trusted again. Black listed!!