3 ms·

>Every rebuttal written web2 in that article applies to web3 as well: Yes that's kind of the point. It's actively dishonest to attribute the difference to web3

by nhinck 4y ago

>Every rebuttal written web2 in that article applies to web3 as well: Yes that's kind of the point. It's actively dishonest to attribute the difference to web3 vs web2. If OpenSea thought they could get away with taking a 45% commission they would do it.

AlchemistCamp 4y ago
The reason OpenSea can't charge 45% is that it's web3, which entails being "open database". Competitors like LooksRare can appear out of nowhere and transact with the exact same data (the ethereum blockchain) and compete on price. OpenSea does have some advantages of network effects and has been able to mostly fend off LooksRare, despite charging a 2.5% vs LR's 2% marketplace fee. There's no way they could have done so if they charged 25% and users could save 23% on every transaction by moving to LooksRare. Similarly, if Airbnb were "open database" and anybody on the internet could build a competitor that used the same data set, there's no way they could take the high fees they currently do. They don't have to, since they're web2, though. All the data about hosts, guests and ratings is in their database and they don't have to share it with incumbents. Social media companies would feel this, too. A huge part of their lock-in is that they own the social graph. It would be a very different situation if that data were on-chain and anyone who wanted to could write a different front-end to surface the same data (some cloning the look and feel closely and other choosing to surface different subsets of the data in different ways).
- Liron 4y ago
  Shared data is a choice any company can make in web2 or web3. The ability to share data in a blockchain rather than an API and regular downloadable data dumps changes nothing about the strategic business implications of shared data. For a detailed example of what I mean by business dynamics being unrelated to the database layer, see my post about Twitter vs a hypothetical web3 version [0] [0] https://medium.com/bloated-mvp/why-web3s-shared-data-across-applications-doesn-t-matter-e0281d3f70d2 https://medium.com/bloated-mvp/why-web3s-shared-data-across-...
  - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
    I disagree with that post because I've built against Bitclout—an actual web3 version of Twitter. There are multiple clients for Bitclout and some of them are social subgraphs. All of Chris Dixon's tweets you embedded in your Medium post are correct. Data stored on the Ethereum blockchain and similar ones is public and anyone can build against that data. This is due to the fact that the blockchain is a shared public database. If Twitter's account and tweet data were on-chain, anybody would be able to create a Twitter client that surfaced the social graph and related data in whatever UI they chose and Twitter could not stop it. If you're technically minded, try building a few throwaway Twitter projects on Ethereum testnet (or Solana, or Avalanche, etc) and get a feel for how it works!
    - Liron 4y ago
      Seems like you're not responding to anything in my last comment
      - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
        I responded to your claims both in your last comment in your blog post you linked to at the bottom of it.
        Liron 4y ago
        You don't seem to be responding on the topic of the relationship between data-layer technology and business strategy. Try saying what you think is the counterfactual if the companies in any particular scenario want or don't want to share data, but blockchain technology isn't in the picture vs is in the picture.
        AlchemistCamp 4y ago
        > Try saying what you think is the counterfactual Make an on-chain Twitter clone (e.g., like Bitclout/DeSo), where 3rd parties can't make their own clients for interacting with the same social graph. Send me a link to the repo and I'll be happy to discuss further and even share any surprises or lessons learned from it.

by nhinck 4y ago

AlchemistCamp 4y ago

The reason OpenSea can't charge 45% is that it's web3, which entails being "open database". Competitors like LooksRare can appear out of nowhere and transact with the exact same data (the ethereum blockchain) and compete on price. OpenSea does have some advantages of network effects and has been able to mostly fend off LooksRare, despite charging a 2.5% vs LR's 2% marketplace fee. There's no way they could have done so if they charged 25% and users could save 23% on every transaction by moving to LooksRare. Similarly, if Airbnb were "open database" and anybody on the internet could build a competitor that used the same data set, there's no way they could take the high fees they currently do. They don't have to, since they're web2, though. All the data about hosts, guests and ratings is in their database and they don't have to share it with incumbents. Social media companies would feel this, too. A huge part of their lock-in is that they own the social graph. It would be a very different situation if that data were on-chain and anyone who wanted to could write a different front-end to surface the same data (some cloning the look and feel closely and other choosing to surface different subsets of the data in different ways).

Liron 4y ago
Shared data is a choice any company can make in web2 or web3. The ability to share data in a blockchain rather than an API and regular downloadable data dumps changes nothing about the strategic business implications of shared data. For a detailed example of what I mean by business dynamics being unrelated to the database layer, see my post about Twitter vs a hypothetical web3 version [0] [0] https://medium.com/bloated-mvp/why-web3s-shared-data-across-applications-doesn-t-matter-e0281d3f70d2 https://medium.com/bloated-mvp/why-web3s-shared-data-across-...
- AlchemistCamp 4y ago
  I disagree with that post because I've built against Bitclout—an actual web3 version of Twitter. There are multiple clients for Bitclout and some of them are social subgraphs. All of Chris Dixon's tweets you embedded in your Medium post are correct. Data stored on the Ethereum blockchain and similar ones is public and anyone can build against that data. This is due to the fact that the blockchain is a shared public database. If Twitter's account and tweet data were on-chain, anybody would be able to create a Twitter client that surfaced the social graph and related data in whatever UI they chose and Twitter could not stop it. If you're technically minded, try building a few throwaway Twitter projects on Ethereum testnet (or Solana, or Avalanche, etc) and get a feel for how it works!
  - Liron 4y ago
    Seems like you're not responding to anything in my last comment
    - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
      I responded to your claims both in your last comment in your blog post you linked to at the bottom of it.
      - Liron 4y ago
        You don't seem to be responding on the topic of the relationship between data-layer technology and business strategy. Try saying what you think is the counterfactual if the companies in any particular scenario want or don't want to share data, but blockchain technology isn't in the picture vs is in the picture.
        AlchemistCamp 4y ago
        > Try saying what you think is the counterfactual Make an on-chain Twitter clone (e.g., like Bitclout/DeSo), where 3rd parties can't make their own clients for interacting with the same social graph. Send me a link to the repo and I'll be happy to discuss further and even share any surprises or lessons learned from it.