I personally hate this type of argument in support (or against) something: > Now, that was also a response that many people had to the world wide web. To exist

I personally hate this type of argument in support (or against) something: > Now, that was also a response that many people had to the world wide web. To existing software developers of the day, it seemed trivial. So even though the technology is slow and very expensive, and it's hard to use distributed databases, there's a lot of investment pouring into the space, and people are trying to figure out actual things that might actually be useful. And I think that it is certainly possible. Reason is we have no data on other ideas or concepts that never made it that people said the same or similar things about. Reminds me of stories of how HP turned down Woz's idea out of context to other ideas Woz (or others) might have had (could have been thousands) that they were right about. > You look at OpenSea the largest NFT marketplace, and it has 600,000 users. By the time the web got to these kinds of valuations, we were talking about hundreds of millions of users. So I believe that it really is a pretty serious speculative bubble on a very small foundation. Again 'n=1' (which btw doesn't mean he isn't right but not sure you can just dig up a number in that way to prove a point). Remember Amazon lost millions for so many years before becoming profitable but you can't use Amazon as a reason why another company losing money will succeed. 'Oh look they said that about Amazon so...' > And even then, how much time will people spend in this VR online space? I don't really know. Financial, cultural and political norms are changing. I think there is a way to figure out 'how much time' by comparing it to other ways that 'people waste time'. Look plenty of people 'waste' time at sports events. But even more waste it by watching tv because that's cheaper and easier and more comfortable. I think this could be modeled. > I could be wrong about all of this. We're in a period of great fluidity around norms. I think this weakens what he has said 'I could be wrong'. Implied is you could be wrong. Why weaken by saying that (to start your last thought) even though he more or less gives a reason why he could be wrong. He could have said 'based on how things look today this is what I think but like with anything it's impossible to predict how future events will impact how successful or not this becomes.