3 ms·

Both Google and FB have a clear value prop. Web3 and crypto don't, which is exactly what the poster was criticizing.

by malermeister 5y ago

jakupovic 5y ago
They don't according to you and the author, but others think it does have value, which makes your point moot also.
- emn13 5y ago
  People say that, but almost everything brought forward has non-crypto equivalents that are likely superior, and don't involve the opportunity cost of burning large amounts of fossil fuel, and redirecting huge amounts of valuable compute resources towards merely sustaining it. Maybe someday some clever smart contract thing will really take off; and maybe someday some non-PoW coin will really matter, and maybe one day all the stabilizing regulatory infrastructure will be replicated for that hypothetical coin. It could happen. But it hasn't happened yet; so far it looks more like a ponzi scheme. And even if the tech really does evolve into something truly valuable, the route to that promised land could still have some surprising ups and downs, and if coins really continue growing, real-world economic pains along the way. Also - the tech behind it all isn't the same thing as the specific instantiation of todays coins. Even if the tech finds a niche, todays coins could still turn out to be a ponzi scheme.
  - jakupovic 5y ago
    Thanks for describing how web3 will succeed that's not based on "number go up"
timdaub 5y ago
It's because you're comparing a company to a category. If I were to say that Coinbase and Uniswap have a clear value prop but AI doesn't, it also wouldn't make much sense as I'm not comparing apples to apples.
- malermeister 5y ago
  Parent made that comparison, not I.
  - timdaub 5y ago
    I'm the author of the parent comment and I haven't compared FB to e.g. a category like web3. Re-read it. I pointed out the unfairness of assuming that "everyone arguing for web3 is an investor" while simultaneously ignoring that anyone opposed to those ideas may have investment-bias too. E.g. HN is known for being anti-crypto but suspects anyone pro crypto to be a crypto-invested shill. But then at the same time I think it must be considered that e.g. anyone being anti-crypto also has a stake or interest in non-crypto related endeavors. I doubt there are people on here without some form of stake simply arguing for "the universal truth".

Both Google and FB have a clear value prop. Web3 and crypto don't, which is exactly what the poster was criticizing.

jakupovic 5y ago

They don't according to you and the author, but others think it does have value, which makes your point moot also.

emn13 5y ago
People say that, but almost everything brought forward has non-crypto equivalents that are likely superior, and don't involve the opportunity cost of burning large amounts of fossil fuel, and redirecting huge amounts of valuable compute resources towards merely sustaining it. Maybe someday some clever smart contract thing will really take off; and maybe someday some non-PoW coin will really matter, and maybe one day all the stabilizing regulatory infrastructure will be replicated for that hypothetical coin. It could happen. But it hasn't happened yet; so far it looks more like a ponzi scheme. And even if the tech really does evolve into something truly valuable, the route to that promised land could still have some surprising ups and downs, and if coins really continue growing, real-world economic pains along the way. Also - the tech behind it all isn't the same thing as the specific instantiation of todays coins. Even if the tech finds a niche, todays coins could still turn out to be a ponzi scheme.
- jakupovic 5y ago
  Thanks for describing how web3 will succeed that's not based on "number go up"

timdaub 5y ago

It's because you're comparing a company to a category. If I were to say that Coinbase and Uniswap have a clear value prop but AI doesn't, it also wouldn't make much sense as I'm not comparing apples to apples.

malermeister 5y ago
Parent made that comparison, not I.
- timdaub 5y ago
  I'm the author of the parent comment and I haven't compared FB to e.g. a category like web3. Re-read it. I pointed out the unfairness of assuming that "everyone arguing for web3 is an investor" while simultaneously ignoring that anyone opposed to those ideas may have investment-bias too. E.g. HN is known for being anti-crypto but suspects anyone pro crypto to be a crypto-invested shill. But then at the same time I think it must be considered that e.g. anyone being anti-crypto also has a stake or interest in non-crypto related endeavors. I doubt there are people on here without some form of stake simply arguing for "the universal truth".