Web3 has already changed the world. Not by much, but the statement doesn't make promises as to how much it has to in order to qualify for "changing the world".

Web3 has already changed the world. Not by much, but the statement doesn't make promises as to how much it has to in order to qualify for "changing the world". > it’s clear that Web3 is just a new spin on the same blockchain tech that we’ve been discussing for the last decade. Web3 is everything blockchain. Queue the astronaut holding a gun "always has been" meme. Its adopted a new label, but the core commerce frameworks (Bitcoin, ETH) and the applications of those frameworks (NFT, DeFi, .eth, etc) are inextricable, technically and philosophically. I mean, really, Web3 sucks, but this article is clearly written by a 60 year old who has been slowly following its developments through Bloomberg articles. The clearest signal that someone hasn't put much critical thinking at all into why Web3 is bad, is prioritizing a complaint about the environmental impact, because that is a problem, but one the community will fix. Its an argument about implementation, not philosophy. > But unless you’re trying to create a cryptocurrency, buy drugs or blackmail a company using ransomware there aren’t really any sensible use cases for a blockchain As bearish as I am on most Web3 technologies; the one that I feel does have use-cases are the core currencies. Look, if you believe the only use-cases for crypto are illegal, and obviously you aren't buying anything illegal with it (I'd bet this guy even drives the speed limit), then you just by-definition outed yourself as being critically misinformed. Because (1) illegal use-cases are still use-cases, and won't stop growth, and (2) there are plenty of legitimate use-cases. What an ass. Just watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g