5 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by bradhe 4y ago

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.