When I first read about Web3, I thought the exact same thing. The fact that there are fees to deploy and run dapps is right there in the design. And yes, it doe

When I first read about Web3, I thought the exact same thing. The fact that there are fees to deploy and run dapps is right there in the design. And yes, it does seem like it's the intended design to have users pay the ether to do so. But that requires users to download and learn how to use a dapp browser, and to front the ether for running them. That's going to be a non-starter, because with the possible exception of a very small number of people, nobody wants to do any of those things. But hypothetically, an app developer could developer their backend as a dapp, and a HTML/CSS/Javascript frontend, essentially using the blockchain as a replacement for AWS. Is this useful? I suspect it isn't. One could argue that blockchains have better uptime than AWS, but I bet the price would be higher and the performance lower. The only other benefits you get are that anyone can audit the dapp (if they trust your Web server to actually be using it), and that you're no longer beholden to a socially-destructive giant company like Amazon. As Moxie's original article pointed out though, you'd still be beholden to the few companies or individuals that run etherium nodes. This is, again, something that approximately nobody wants to do, and if Web3 ever took off, I suspect the bandwidth and storage requirements of running a node would increase to the point where only socially-destructive giant companies could afford to do so.