4 ms·
At an abstract level I’m all for web3, where web3 is an internet application with distributing hosting and all users paying in equal proportion to their usage t
by helen___keller 4y ago
At an abstract level I’m all for web3, where web3 is an internet application with distributing hosting and all users paying in equal proportion to their usage to maintain said hosting.
That said everything we have now is a lackluster proof of concept that doubles as a pyramid scheme.
Imagine if you had to pay for your Netflix subscription with Netflix stock. What a joke.
- danpalmer 4y agoI think a problem with web3 is that the only mechanism it really has is "monetary transfers", and that's just not an appropriate primitive to build most things out of, as much as its proponents would like it to be.
- helen___keller 4y agoI don’t agree actually. The only mechanism web3 has is “entries in a ledger”, on which you can build arbitrary data stores. The choice to tie each ledger entry to a pyramid scheme is entirely made by the founders and investors of the projects, for obvious reasons. IMO the real theoretical problem with a functioning web3 is the “a” in “entries in a ledger”. One ledger cannot power a high throughput application. This is a fatal flaw to a web3 project succeeding on non-financialized merits. There’s some research into protocols for inter-ledger transfers that could enable scalability, but that’s always (so far) for the sake of wrapping and moving around pyramid coins between ecosystems.