3 ms·

I think the argument made implicitly is that with web3 you could actually monetize your contribution. If you run an IRC server you (usually) only have cost. One

by leifg 5y ago

I think the argument made implicitly is that with web3 you could actually monetize your contribution. If you run an IRC server you (usually) only have cost. One part of web3 is tokens so you can actually earn some fake money by running an IRC server. I think if you look at the economics of that though I don't think it will turn out in your favor. You are either making 10ct a month from it or you'll have to heavily invest in hardware to (potentially) turn a profit. The reason some of that works now is because we have an inflated price of tokens and people are speculating on it going up. But that makes it not an appealing service for you to pay for. And all of that forgets that the vast majority of people is not willing to pay anything to use a service. No matter how often web3 people will yell "If you don't pay for it, you're the product".

runako 5y ago
I remember so much of the time I spent on IRC and XMPP overlapped with the period in my life when I had the fewest financial resources. It would have been net negative for me if the popular chat spaces had been accompanied by any kind of toll.
- malermeister 5y ago
  Big plus to this point. The idea behind web3 seems to be "the web, but everything is an attempt to gauge people for money now". How is that better? Who asked for more money to be involved everywhere? I just want an open space to hang out with people and share ideas and data, I don't want everything to become a gated community.
  - telxosser 5y ago
    The worst part to me is how it would change the content. If we were all getting paid for this conversation it would not be the same conversation as right now + getting paid. So often my opinion on a topic is so different than the opinion I think will get the most upvotes. It is really why I think the whole concept is doomed to fail.
    - malermeister 5y ago
      That is another insane aspect, correct. There's a big overlap between crypto advocates and people who feel very strongly about freedom of speech, but in reality the world they'd build would involve a lot of self-censorship for financial reasons. Freedom of speech only for those that can afford it.
threeseed 5y ago
Also Web3 is inherently centred around usage models. One token for each comment or channel. But a lot of people hate that model and much prefer the "all you can eat" monthly subcription approach.

by leifg 5y ago

runako 5y ago

I remember so much of the time I spent on IRC and XMPP overlapped with the period in my life when I had the fewest financial resources. It would have been net negative for me if the popular chat spaces had been accompanied by any kind of toll.

malermeister 5y ago
Big plus to this point. The idea behind web3 seems to be "the web, but everything is an attempt to gauge people for money now". How is that better? Who asked for more money to be involved everywhere? I just want an open space to hang out with people and share ideas and data, I don't want everything to become a gated community.
- telxosser 5y ago
  The worst part to me is how it would change the content. If we were all getting paid for this conversation it would not be the same conversation as right now + getting paid. So often my opinion on a topic is so different than the opinion I think will get the most upvotes. It is really why I think the whole concept is doomed to fail.
  - malermeister 5y ago
    That is another insane aspect, correct. There's a big overlap between crypto advocates and people who feel very strongly about freedom of speech, but in reality the world they'd build would involve a lot of self-censorship for financial reasons. Freedom of speech only for those that can afford it.

threeseed 5y ago

Also Web3 is inherently centred around usage models. One token for each comment or channel. But a lot of people hate that model and much prefer the "all you can eat" monthly subcription approach.