4 ms·
Part of the thing that moves terms from "hype" to "real" is: money. Take the example of a singer. v1: "I'm an aspiring singer." "Oh cool. What experience do
by julianeon 5y ago
Part of the thing that moves terms from "hype" to "real" is: money.
Take the example of a singer.
v1: "I'm an aspiring singer."
"Oh cool. What experience do you have?"
"So far I've played at home & family gatherings..." (<- not real)
v2: "I'm an aspiring singer."
"What experience do you have?"
"I have a 10 million dollar contract with Interscope." (<- real)
By that standard, one of the reasons that web3 is 'real' is because so much money has been poured into it.
At this point, there are enough highly skilled (Google-quality) engineers, working on web3 things, who are funded for years, that real profit-earning web3 companies will result.
So web3 will end being judged a success, on its own terms, purely because of that.
- fosefx 5y agoI think the real standard is the amount of people that care about it. Take the same example of a singer. v1: "I'm an aspiring singer." "So far I've played at home & family gatherings..." (<- not real) v2: "I'm an aspiring singer." "I have 10 million monthly listeners on Spotify" (<- real) By that standard, web3 is not 'real'. Not enough people care. Don't get me wrong, those that care seem to *really* care, but I do not see a future were people will give up the social concept of ownership (which seems like the only thing any web3 project is revolving around) and let some racing computers make that decision for them. And let's be honest here, even if I'm completely wrong about this, this technology is not even close to being worth to the amount of money thrown at it right now.