The linked post in TFA (which is essentially the OP's main argument in favor of web3) describes how the PC won, even though it was deficient in almost every dim

The linked post in TFA (which is essentially the OP's main argument in favor of web3) describes how the PC won, even though it was deficient in almost every dimension (worse CPU, worse memory, storage, etc) than existing mainframes, except for one dimension: price. It then goes on to describe how blockchain is essentially the same thing - it's a "worse" database in every way, except one: it's not controlled by a single entity The problem with this analogy is that price is a very very different and meaningful dimension than something like memory, or storage. making something cheaper is different than making something faster. Making something faster doesn't make it more accessible. The PC was more accessible than any other computer out there. To compare price to "being controlled by a single entity" is totally wrong. Sure, the data is "accessible" in that it's public, but to use the technology is actually way more expensive than a traditional database. in fact, calling blockchain better while ignoring the price of storing data in the blockchain is like, exactly the opposite reason why the PC won! I'm actually pro making data way more accessible, and I wonder if there's a web3 app out there that isn't some sort of financial instrument, and not about hoarding tokens in the hope that the price for them goes up, but actually about distributing data ownership in a way that people who didn't "get in early" can actually have a seat at the table.