8 ms·

The Pivot to Web3 Is Going to Get People Hurt

46 points by hooande 4y ago

bradhe 4y ago
> What matters to investors is that Web3 is the hot new thing and the entrepreneurs are piling in. Bingo. This is why Web3 still exists and people keep talking about it. It’s driven entirely by people trying to force opportunity.
- lampshades 4y ago
  - igorkraw 4y ago
    Thought experiment: if your whole decentralised trustless thing relies on some centralised economy to drive it (say in a conically extending square formation), it clearly is pretty useless, so imagine you could actually bever cash out your tokens, only use them for consumption (and the same rule hold for everyone else). What's the value/opportunity?
  - altdataseller 4y ago
    What problem does web3 solve? Give me a concrete problem not an abstract one.
    - addajones 4y ago
      I’ve been trying to figure out since day one a real world problem it solves… nothing has come to mind yet.
    - j4hdufd8 4y ago
      What do you mean a concrete problem? Decentralization/Web3 could create a world without Google/Facebook/Twitter monopolies. Is that not concrete enough or interesting enough?
      - flappyeagle 4y ago
        It’s not true enough
      - _yo2u 4y ago
        So could regulation /s
      - altdataseller 4y ago
        What problem would it solve that would make Twitter and FB obsolete and go away?
      - rufius 4y ago
        Mastodon is definitely not web3. It offers a world without Facebook/Twitter. How would web3 improve that? You don’t need a blockchain to do federation (I.e. Mastodon).
      - igorkraw 4y ago
        In a word, no. It's not concrete at all. How exactly would web3 technology solve all the issues these platforms are solving (including hosting, moderation, monetisation, dispute settling, software development etc.) we'll enough not only to be competitive, but to replace them ?
  - itsoktocry 4y ago
    >What a load of horseshit. Just because you clearly can’t see the opportunity doesn’t mean there isn’t any. "You don't get it" This is the typical response. Show us something useful, it should be easy. Outside of moving by crypto around staking random things (and betting on sports), I haven't found anything yet. Again, at least Web 1.0 had simple business models, even if the economics sucked.
- WJW 4y ago
  > What matters to investors I'm sure that there are some investors who feel like this, but "investors" is such a big group that it really doesn't make a lot of sense to speak about them as a homogeneous whole. There's the r/WSB crowd for sure, but there is also hedge funds, day traders, pension funds, family offices, sector funds, dividend focused investors, commodities traders, forex traders, distressed bond investors, HFT market makers, etc etc etc. Most of these groups are barely going to be impacted by Web3, if at all. The hype-driven FOMO crowd is a very small portion of the overall investing community.
  - criley2 4y ago
    Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but when someone says investors in regards to ycombinator/entrepreneurship/software they are referring to early stage startup investors, angel investors and investors in series A, or later rounds. They're saying that the folks who invest in new software startups (like ycombinator) are a little too buzz-wordy, a little too influenced by "disruption opportunity" and as such are constantly trying to invest in "the next thing", and in this case, that is web3. I think the counter to that is that many investors are trying to invest in good teams and not necessarily good ideas, because many (most?) unicorns look very different at $1B as they did at employee #1, with a very different product. Good teams with bad ideas can pivot and succeed, but bad teams with good ideas can still fail.
- dereg 4y ago
  This is how capital formation works. Innovation has never been a game of investing _precisely_ the amount of money needed to create the next invention. It's precipitated by people throwing way too much money at everything, hoping to get something. Pretending like this is some unique feature of crypto is no less disingenuous than those who say that web3 is inevitable.
- oefrha 4y ago
  Iced tea company rebrands as “Long Blockchain” and stock price triples https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/iced-tea-company-stock-triples-after-adding-blockchain-to-name/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/iced-tea-company... That shit was 2017. Can’t believe it’s almost five years already.
  - _fat_santa 4y ago
    That must have let to the greatest call with investors: "Hey so we trolled the internet by renaming our company....and the value of your stock has tripled"
    - itsoktocry 4y ago
      Hey, those people won. Imagine the people on the other side of that trade? Buying shares in an iced tea company because it added blockchain to its name?
- itsoktocry 4y ago
  I dabble a bit in DeFi, and try to keep up with some of the tech. But perusing my Twitter feed, I feel like I'm on another planet. So many pointless NFTs. Companies which I have no idea what business they're in, along with their "marketers" (often good looking young women). VCs investing in and talking about paradigm shifting startups for which I can't name a single customer. At least we could understand what Pets.com did.
AndrewDucker 4y ago
The quote about setting up a company for “an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is” has never seemed so appropriate.
jeffparsons 4y ago
Before the rise of "Web3", I never would have believed that so many people would look at that stupid name and conclude that it is somehow inevitable or even a meaningful successor to what we had already. Whoever started calling it that is either very lucky or an evil genius; they somehow got a bunch of otherwise reasonable people to switch off their critical thinking and see a bunch of cryptojunk as something other than cryptojunk. Everyone building some "crypto", "blockchain", or "Web3" thing claims they're creating some kind of value, and yet in all I've seen so far, they don't actually solve the real world problems they claim to be solving, and if you were to remove the speculators from the game then the whole thing would collapse. I just see one pyramid-shaped casino after another.
- BrianOnHN 4y ago
  > Whoever started calling it that is either very lucky or an evil genius In a world that is currently dominated by the effects of misinformation, I'd bet on the latter.
  - was_a_dev 4y ago
    I think OP is overestimating the critical thinking skills of the population. That is why misinformation is so effective
- criddell 4y ago
  > Whoever started calling it that is either very lucky or an evil genius It’s aspirational at best. Web 2.0 wasn’t declared up front but rather was coined to describe a sweeping trend.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    Web 2.0 was very much coined as a marketing ploy to sell conference tickets. We used to make fun of how little sense the whole thing made and to this day I have yet to see a coherent and meaningful definition of what Web 2.0 actually is. Still Web3 definitely got it beat on all that.
red_admiral 4y ago
The real question is what kind of signals should one look out for to distinguish something that's really the next big thing from a giant bubble about to burst. Web3 could be either of the two. However, lots of web3 ideas - all the ones I've read about lately, to be honest - don't pass the "I can see the value of that" test, compared to say M-Pesa which is a genuinely useful way to digitally enhance (or "disrupt" if you prefer) the financial system.
- Swiffy0 4y ago
  Well, we already have more than enough ways to pay for stuff digitally and most of them are already very easy to use, very fast and secure enough. Therefore I think it's relatively safe to say that blockchains, at least for payments, is not the next big thing. If you work in the field, you could simply look out for things that are expensive, slow, hard, or all three and if someone is trying to fix thay. One thing that comes into my mind are private cloud services. There aren't any good locally installable cloud platforms. There seems to be a rising need for private clouds and/or "user verifiable cloud services" aka. more or less "locally installable AWS" or a way to be sure that when you buy some cloud service, there is no way your data can leak anywhere at any point. Speaking of verifications, guarantees and such, one interesting concept I've been looking into lately are zero knowledge proofs. Simply put, they would be a way for person A to prove to person B something about X, without revealing anything (sensitive) about X.
  - acka 4y ago
    > There aren't any good locally installable cloud platforms. What about Eucalyptus[1] for instance (no affiliation)? it's open source, can be installed locally, and specifically mentions compatibility with AWS. I have personally used it with both official AWS and third-party tools to reproduce the deployment and use of an existing setup on AWS, and it worked very well for me. [1] https://www.eucalyptus.cloud/ https://www.eucalyptus.cloud/
civilized 4y ago
There is not going to be any pivot to Web3.
hooande 4y ago
This article makes some points outside of "Web3 is a buzzword/scam". The idea is that if a startup involves tokens as a form of equity, investors can request that some of those tokens be set aside for them. Then those tokens can 1) be converted to cash without needing to find an acquirer or go public 2) be used to capitalize on negative non-public information about a company without it being insider trading. In addition if the company has a traditional exit the tokens can also be sold, allowing investors to profit twice. The narrative in the article is that investors are pushing startups hard to incorporate a token pool into companies that have no need for one, in order to take advantage of these benefits. Being able to cash out tokens without an exit based on non-public info drastically reduces the risk and increases the upside. So investors can put money into many more long shot companies. This seems very bad. It's centralizing tens of billions of dollars in the startup ecosystem around one technical concept that only has utility to the investing class. They can conveniently say it's about community and decentralization, when really it's a crude tool to reduce their investing risk. If I had to guess, they will end up slowly reinventing the traditional investing system with all of the rules and regulations that come with it. But that will take years, and a lot of the investor class will benefit from low risk / high reward in the process. At least the smart ones will. There is no productive innovation for society here. Only a new way for the rich to play with numbers until they get even richer.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > One entrepreneur described with great frustration that he had recently spoken to a founder at a VC mixer who was building a “decentralized” dinner reservation system. When he asked why a reservation system needed to be on the blockchain, the founder simply said: “It’s the future.” Decentralization is electrolytes. It's what plants crave. Joe: For the last time, I'm pretty sure what's killing the crops is this Brawndo stuff. Secretary of State: But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes. Attorney General: So wait a minute. What you're saying is that you want us to put water on the crops. Joe: Yes. Attorney General: Water. Like out the toilet? Joe: Well, I mean, it doesn't have to be out of the toilet, but, yeah, that's the idea. Secretary of State: But Brawndo's got what plants crave. Attorney General: It's got electrolytes.
- MathCodeLove 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
onion2k 4y ago
I'm willing to bet there won't be a pivot to web3 so I think we'll be OK.
beardyw 4y ago
Taking your money to the casino might make you richer. Not doing so won't make you poorer. It has always been so.
eternityforest 4y ago
It might, if there actually was a pivot. I think most people are disinterested enough to really slow down any pivot. Web3 could have been amazing without blockchain and crypto integration, since BitTorrent proves p2p is possible in a sane way.
funstuff007 4y ago
> In late May, amid plunging crypto prices, one of Web3’s biggest institutional backers, the venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, announced it had raised a monstrous $4.5 billion crypto fund If your college calls you in 2023 with a dire warning about budget shortfalls due to endowment non-performance, now you know why.
mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
I think there may be valid uses of blockchain and decentralized tracking of things but most of the stuff I hear is coming from marketers, etc. An example would be actual real estate titles and deeds, not virtual real estate. This data set of who owns what piece of land could benefit from the features blockchain has as an open, decentralized database. You might eliminate a bunch of lawyer jobs and “title insurance” business in the process which is mostly bullshit anyhow. Decentralized is key because then it isn’t pay walled off behind some company. I didn’t mention money, tokens, or coins either because those aren’t really part of the use case. Public domain tracking of things is probably a solid use case in general but also might not be profitable. The decentralized part means the cost of maintenance is spread out more, maybe to the point of making it zero for a municipality. Does this use case require blockchain? No, but it’s rare that any use case we come up with actually requires a certain tech stack to solve.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pieix 4y ago
  Who would mine those blocks? There has to be value in it for them. And there better be a lot of it — such a ledger would be an extremely appealing target for bad actors.
- Mezzie 4y ago
  I've had the thought kicking around in my head for a while that the decentralized, difficult to alter nature of blockchain might have some use for the long-term preservation of provenance in the archival sense: Often figuring out whether something is legitimate or not requires tracking down its history of possession. This is/can be very messy, and I can see blockchain tech maybe eventually solving some of these issues. But preserving things for future researchers doesn't earn $$, so I imagine it will take a few decades at least.
- mojuba 4y ago
  Why can't the described use case solved with some trivial database with digital signatures? Which is essentially sort of blockchain, just simpler. However, with or without blockchain you still need an authority that would say: "this is the legitimate blockchain, that one is not".
01acheru 4y ago
An article so long to say so little... why am I still reading vice?
marban 4y ago
There are only two ways to believe in W3: You cashed out during W2 and run low on cash or you were too young to experience W1/2.
doctor_eval 4y ago
“Is going to”? https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ https://web3isgoinggreat.com/
simne 4y ago
It is very sad, to see so conservative position of so famous organisation. I see many problems in web3 conception, but they are technical problems, so could resolve if somebody really want to resolve. For non-tech, web3 is not in any way different from any other new concept. - Unfortunately, all pass the same way, with also typical obstacles, known for civilization for millennia. For example, governments at least 10 years have enough information to make regulations, to use best from crypto community and make sector less attractive for thieves. But instead, governments as usual use policy of limit and forbid, push crypto into criminal world.

46 points by hooande 4y ago

> What matters to investors is that Web3 is the hot new thing and the entrepreneurs are piling in. Bingo. This is why Web3 still exists and people keep talking about it. It’s driven entirely by people trying to force opportunity.

lampshades 4y ago
- igorkraw 4y ago
  Thought experiment: if your whole decentralised trustless thing relies on some centralised economy to drive it (say in a conically extending square formation), it clearly is pretty useless, so imagine you could actually bever cash out your tokens, only use them for consumption (and the same rule hold for everyone else). What's the value/opportunity?
- altdataseller 4y ago
  What problem does web3 solve? Give me a concrete problem not an abstract one.
  - addajones 4y ago
    I’ve been trying to figure out since day one a real world problem it solves… nothing has come to mind yet.
  - j4hdufd8 4y ago
    What do you mean a concrete problem? Decentralization/Web3 could create a world without Google/Facebook/Twitter monopolies. Is that not concrete enough or interesting enough?
    - flappyeagle 4y ago
      It’s not true enough
    - _yo2u 4y ago
      So could regulation /s
    - altdataseller 4y ago
      What problem would it solve that would make Twitter and FB obsolete and go away?
    - rufius 4y ago
      Mastodon is definitely not web3. It offers a world without Facebook/Twitter. How would web3 improve that? You don’t need a blockchain to do federation (I.e. Mastodon).
    - igorkraw 4y ago
      In a word, no. It's not concrete at all. How exactly would web3 technology solve all the issues these platforms are solving (including hosting, moderation, monetisation, dispute settling, software development etc.) we'll enough not only to be competitive, but to replace them ?
- itsoktocry 4y ago
  >What a load of horseshit. Just because you clearly can’t see the opportunity doesn’t mean there isn’t any. "You don't get it" This is the typical response. Show us something useful, it should be easy. Outside of moving by crypto around staking random things (and betting on sports), I haven't found anything yet. Again, at least Web 1.0 had simple business models, even if the economics sucked.
WJW 4y ago
> What matters to investors I'm sure that there are some investors who feel like this, but "investors" is such a big group that it really doesn't make a lot of sense to speak about them as a homogeneous whole. There's the r/WSB crowd for sure, but there is also hedge funds, day traders, pension funds, family offices, sector funds, dividend focused investors, commodities traders, forex traders, distressed bond investors, HFT market makers, etc etc etc. Most of these groups are barely going to be impacted by Web3, if at all. The hype-driven FOMO crowd is a very small portion of the overall investing community.
- criley2 4y ago
  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but when someone says investors in regards to ycombinator/entrepreneurship/software they are referring to early stage startup investors, angel investors and investors in series A, or later rounds. They're saying that the folks who invest in new software startups (like ycombinator) are a little too buzz-wordy, a little too influenced by "disruption opportunity" and as such are constantly trying to invest in "the next thing", and in this case, that is web3. I think the counter to that is that many investors are trying to invest in good teams and not necessarily good ideas, because many (most?) unicorns look very different at $1B as they did at employee #1, with a very different product. Good teams with bad ideas can pivot and succeed, but bad teams with good ideas can still fail.
dereg 4y ago
This is how capital formation works. Innovation has never been a game of investing _precisely_ the amount of money needed to create the next invention. It's precipitated by people throwing way too much money at everything, hoping to get something. Pretending like this is some unique feature of crypto is no less disingenuous than those who say that web3 is inevitable.
oefrha 4y ago
Iced tea company rebrands as “Long Blockchain” and stock price triples https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/iced-tea-company-stock-triples-after-adding-blockchain-to-name/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/iced-tea-company... That shit was 2017. Can’t believe it’s almost five years already.
- _fat_santa 4y ago
  That must have let to the greatest call with investors: "Hey so we trolled the internet by renaming our company....and the value of your stock has tripled"
  - itsoktocry 4y ago
    Hey, those people won. Imagine the people on the other side of that trade? Buying shares in an iced tea company because it added blockchain to its name?
itsoktocry 4y ago
I dabble a bit in DeFi, and try to keep up with some of the tech. But perusing my Twitter feed, I feel like I'm on another planet. So many pointless NFTs. Companies which I have no idea what business they're in, along with their "marketers" (often good looking young women). VCs investing in and talking about paradigm shifting startups for which I can't name a single customer. At least we could understand what Pets.com did.

AndrewDucker 4y ago

The quote about setting up a company for “an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is” has never seemed so appropriate.

jeffparsons 4y ago

Before the rise of "Web3", I never would have believed that so many people would look at that stupid name and conclude that it is somehow inevitable or even a meaningful successor to what we had already. Whoever started calling it that is either very lucky or an evil genius; they somehow got a bunch of otherwise reasonable people to switch off their critical thinking and see a bunch of cryptojunk as something other than cryptojunk. Everyone building some "crypto", "blockchain", or "Web3" thing claims they're creating some kind of value, and yet in all I've seen so far, they don't actually solve the real world problems they claim to be solving, and if you were to remove the speculators from the game then the whole thing would collapse. I just see one pyramid-shaped casino after another.

BrianOnHN 4y ago
> Whoever started calling it that is either very lucky or an evil genius In a world that is currently dominated by the effects of misinformation, I'd bet on the latter.
- was_a_dev 4y ago
  I think OP is overestimating the critical thinking skills of the population. That is why misinformation is so effective
criddell 4y ago
> Whoever started calling it that is either very lucky or an evil genius It’s aspirational at best. Web 2.0 wasn’t declared up front but rather was coined to describe a sweeping trend.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  Web 2.0 was very much coined as a marketing ploy to sell conference tickets. We used to make fun of how little sense the whole thing made and to this day I have yet to see a coherent and meaningful definition of what Web 2.0 actually is. Still Web3 definitely got it beat on all that.

red_admiral 4y ago

The real question is what kind of signals should one look out for to distinguish something that's really the next big thing from a giant bubble about to burst. Web3 could be either of the two. However, lots of web3 ideas - all the ones I've read about lately, to be honest - don't pass the "I can see the value of that" test, compared to say M-Pesa which is a genuinely useful way to digitally enhance (or "disrupt" if you prefer) the financial system.

Swiffy0 4y ago
Well, we already have more than enough ways to pay for stuff digitally and most of them are already very easy to use, very fast and secure enough. Therefore I think it's relatively safe to say that blockchains, at least for payments, is not the next big thing. If you work in the field, you could simply look out for things that are expensive, slow, hard, or all three and if someone is trying to fix thay. One thing that comes into my mind are private cloud services. There aren't any good locally installable cloud platforms. There seems to be a rising need for private clouds and/or "user verifiable cloud services" aka. more or less "locally installable AWS" or a way to be sure that when you buy some cloud service, there is no way your data can leak anywhere at any point. Speaking of verifications, guarantees and such, one interesting concept I've been looking into lately are zero knowledge proofs. Simply put, they would be a way for person A to prove to person B something about X, without revealing anything (sensitive) about X.
- acka 4y ago
  > There aren't any good locally installable cloud platforms. What about Eucalyptus[1] for instance (no affiliation)? it's open source, can be installed locally, and specifically mentions compatibility with AWS. I have personally used it with both official AWS and third-party tools to reproduce the deployment and use of an existing setup on AWS, and it worked very well for me. [1] https://www.eucalyptus.cloud/ https://www.eucalyptus.cloud/

civilized 4y ago

There is not going to be any pivot to Web3.

hooande 4y ago

This article makes some points outside of "Web3 is a buzzword/scam". The idea is that if a startup involves tokens as a form of equity, investors can request that some of those tokens be set aside for them. Then those tokens can 1) be converted to cash without needing to find an acquirer or go public 2) be used to capitalize on negative non-public information about a company without it being insider trading. In addition if the company has a traditional exit the tokens can also be sold, allowing investors to profit twice. The narrative in the article is that investors are pushing startups hard to incorporate a token pool into companies that have no need for one, in order to take advantage of these benefits. Being able to cash out tokens without an exit based on non-public info drastically reduces the risk and increases the upside. So investors can put money into many more long shot companies. This seems very bad. It's centralizing tens of billions of dollars in the startup ecosystem around one technical concept that only has utility to the investing class. They can conveniently say it's about community and decentralization, when really it's a crude tool to reduce their investing risk. If I had to guess, they will end up slowly reinventing the traditional investing system with all of the rules and regulations that come with it. But that will take years, and a lot of the investor class will benefit from low risk / high reward in the process. At least the smart ones will. There is no productive innovation for society here. Only a new way for the rich to play with numbers until they get even richer.

arcticbull 4y ago
> One entrepreneur described with great frustration that he had recently spoken to a founder at a VC mixer who was building a “decentralized” dinner reservation system. When he asked why a reservation system needed to be on the blockchain, the founder simply said: “It’s the future.” Decentralization is electrolytes. It's what plants crave. Joe: For the last time, I'm pretty sure what's killing the crops is this Brawndo stuff. Secretary of State: But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes. Attorney General: So wait a minute. What you're saying is that you want us to put water on the crops. Joe: Yes. Attorney General: Water. Like out the toilet? Joe: Well, I mean, it doesn't have to be out of the toilet, but, yeah, that's the idea. Secretary of State: But Brawndo's got what plants crave. Attorney General: It's got electrolytes.
MathCodeLove 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

onion2k 4y ago

I'm willing to bet there won't be a pivot to web3 so I think we'll be OK.

beardyw 4y ago

Taking your money to the casino might make you richer. Not doing so won't make you poorer. It has always been so.

eternityforest 4y ago

It might, if there actually was a pivot. I think most people are disinterested enough to really slow down any pivot. Web3 could have been amazing without blockchain and crypto integration, since BitTorrent proves p2p is possible in a sane way.

funstuff007 4y ago

> In late May, amid plunging crypto prices, one of Web3’s biggest institutional backers, the venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, announced it had raised a monstrous $4.5 billion crypto fund If your college calls you in 2023 with a dire warning about budget shortfalls due to endowment non-performance, now you know why.

mattbrewsbytes 4y ago

I think there may be valid uses of blockchain and decentralized tracking of things but most of the stuff I hear is coming from marketers, etc. An example would be actual real estate titles and deeds, not virtual real estate. This data set of who owns what piece of land could benefit from the features blockchain has as an open, decentralized database. You might eliminate a bunch of lawyer jobs and “title insurance” business in the process which is mostly bullshit anyhow. Decentralized is key because then it isn’t pay walled off behind some company. I didn’t mention money, tokens, or coins either because those aren’t really part of the use case. Public domain tracking of things is probably a solid use case in general but also might not be profitable. The decentralized part means the cost of maintenance is spread out more, maybe to the point of making it zero for a municipality. Does this use case require blockchain? No, but it’s rare that any use case we come up with actually requires a certain tech stack to solve.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pieix 4y ago
Who would mine those blocks? There has to be value in it for them. And there better be a lot of it — such a ledger would be an extremely appealing target for bad actors.
Mezzie 4y ago
I've had the thought kicking around in my head for a while that the decentralized, difficult to alter nature of blockchain might have some use for the long-term preservation of provenance in the archival sense: Often figuring out whether something is legitimate or not requires tracking down its history of possession. This is/can be very messy, and I can see blockchain tech maybe eventually solving some of these issues. But preserving things for future researchers doesn't earn $$, so I imagine it will take a few decades at least.
mojuba 4y ago
Why can't the described use case solved with some trivial database with digital signatures? Which is essentially sort of blockchain, just simpler. However, with or without blockchain you still need an authority that would say: "this is the legitimate blockchain, that one is not".

01acheru 4y ago

An article so long to say so little... why am I still reading vice?

marban 4y ago

There are only two ways to believe in W3: You cashed out during W2 and run low on cash or you were too young to experience W1/2.

doctor_eval 4y ago

“Is going to”? https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ https://web3isgoinggreat.com/

simne 4y ago

It is very sad, to see so conservative position of so famous organisation. I see many problems in web3 conception, but they are technical problems, so could resolve if somebody really want to resolve. For non-tech, web3 is not in any way different from any other new concept. - Unfortunately, all pass the same way, with also typical obstacles, known for civilization for millennia. For example, governments at least 10 years have enough information to make regulations, to use best from crypto community and make sector less attractive for thieves. But instead, governments as usual use policy of limit and forbid, push crypto into criminal world.