"the P2P community established something like a tiny, lightweight communist bubble" Yes, and that's the core of the problem. Things are pretty limited when the

"the P2P community established something like a tiny, lightweight communist bubble" Yes, and that's the core of the problem. Things are pretty limited when the premise is "donating spare hardware and bandwidth." "[Web3 follows] a heavyweight libertarian path: Everything should be monetized." I don't know what these people think. Only traditional companies should be allowed to make money, and the rest of the world should donate their resources? The conclusion of this piece sounds a bit arbitrary too. P2P failed in the past because of the lack of monetization. Web3 tries to solve this by adding monetization at the protocol level. Adding something to a system to solve an issue that wasn't solved before can add complexity. The author doesn't like complexity, so it's a failed attempt. What?