7 ms·

Tyler Cowen asks Marc Andreessen to explain a Web3 use case [video]

47 points by Liron 4y ago

prepend 4y ago
Andreeson is very rich and he wrote Mosaic and Netscape, so he’s smart. But he always seemed kind of full of BS with Opsware and stuff and cashed out by selling to a greater fool, I think HP or something. So I’ve always looked at his offerings and not understood why they are valuable. I never thought he was trying to scam, but this clip seems to be total BS to the extent that they are just cashing in on a more broad set of greater fools.
- hazyc 4y ago
  He's smart but he doesn't sound like an engineer at this point in his life/career. He sounds like a wealthy person who reads a wide variety of books/tweets and has range of smart but shallow talking points combined with a good deal of practiced hand waving. Chris Dixon sounds exactly like him. I wonder if Marc has written more than a 'hello, world' in the past 5-10 years. He's probably better versed in modern art and finance than he is in computer science or engineering these days.
  - dubswithus 4y ago
    Why would he need to be an engineer to be successful in tech? Steve Jobs wasn’t. If a large group of people want crypto it will exist regardless of the engineering merits.
    - lupire 4y ago
      Steve Jobs designed (like product requirements, not technical details) and sold products people loved, for decades. He didn't just make handwavy sales pitches.
quanto 4y ago
The full podcast here: video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNl6Cr1k07c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNl6Cr1k07c transcript and audio: https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/marc-andreessen/ https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/marc-andreessen/
valleyjo 4y ago
at least in this clip that was a big time struggle to communicate the value prop of web3
- iqkznnft 4y ago
  Communicating what web3 actually is would be a good start.
  - astrange 4y ago
    It's when Marc Andreessen sells you unregistered securities.
hansword 4y ago
I was involved in bitcoin in early 2010, so by the time MtGox got hacked, I had already well over a year experience with it, aka the 'honeymoon period' was over. So at that point (Summer 2011), I took a long hard look into the mirror, discussed this with friends, both on- and offline, and everyone was struggling to find real use cases that didn't involve crime. When then, later in 2011, Litecoin and the other alts came on the scene, without any real difference, I left the crypto scene. Now, over 10 years later, the number of real life use cases not involving crime is still scarce. That's a bit embarrassing, if you ask me. (Edit: small correction)
- iqkznnft 4y ago
  So I guess I was ahead of you. When I asked why something with no use other can facilitating transactions should have value, a friend explained to me "it's like dollar, right? To transact with it you have to obtain it, and that creates demand. Then Bitcoin is finite, and these two facts give it its value". To that I responded "so what's preventing someone from creating bitcoin2, bitcoin3, etc. Nothing, so the supply isn't really finite, and so it should have no value". And so I decided I was out, long before Litecoin came along :-) I was quite young at the time, but I've since learned that just because something has no value, doesn't mean you can't make money trading it.
  - kareemsabri 4y ago
    It's interesting because even a recent a16z podcast (an "oral essay" on crypto) argued that scarcity is what made bitcoin valuable. And that "scarcity" + collective belief is what makes things valuable (they claimed the dollar and bitcoin are the same in this regard, just collective belief propping them up). They didn't seem to grasp that there are lots of scarce things nobody cares much about. Dollars are in demand because they provide utility (namely, I need it to buy things and I need to pay my taxes in it). There's probably a third utility, which is having lots of Bitcoin means you have lots of dollars, which means people know you're rich and want to date you, be friends with you, party with you in Miami etc. But it's interesting to notice (this is a bit trite but I think not totally) that people still tally crypto wealth in dollars ("he's a crypto billionaire" doesn't mean he has billions of bitcoins) so the utility of bitcoin seems to implicitly be that it's worth lots of dollars.
RockRobotRock 4y ago
I really dislike anti-web3 sentiment from nontechnical people, but I love hearing it from technical people in the field. Why is that?
- iqkznnft 4y ago
  > I really dislike anti-web3 sentiment from nontechnical people, but I love hearing it from technical people in the field. Why is that? You like the idea that you're a contrarian.
  - RockRobotRock 4y ago
    Maybe you’re right.
- kareemsabri 4y ago
  perhaps because they are informed and have the expertise to substantiate their positions?
AndrianV 4y ago
Astounding to me that folks working for "likes" on a website couldn't see how Web3 can improve this approach.
- secretsatan 4y ago
  Each like should cost you a small amount and be slow to process. why can't people see that's an improvement?
  - rgoulter 4y ago
    One weird idea I heard was along the lines of "pay $x to read an article; if you didn't like the article, you can choose that the next person who reads it gets refunded". One kindof criticism of social media is that it's very performative. Many solutions I've seen involve the idea of adding some kind of friction. "slow to process" is obviously bad, but the idea of adding costs to things isn't one I'd outright rule out.
aaron695 4y ago
devonallie 4y ago
I want to believe that Web3 can do something more for us but when I hear people evangelize it all the time, scam alarms start ringing. Andreessen speaks too quickly, only in the abstract, and changes points before finishing them. It’s a clever marketing trick that gets the audience to fill in the gaps as it were and leaves no time to consider that nothing of value has actually been said.

47 points by Liron 4y ago

Andreeson is very rich and he wrote Mosaic and Netscape, so he’s smart. But he always seemed kind of full of BS with Opsware and stuff and cashed out by selling to a greater fool, I think HP or something. So I’ve always looked at his offerings and not understood why they are valuable. I never thought he was trying to scam, but this clip seems to be total BS to the extent that they are just cashing in on a more broad set of greater fools.

hazyc 4y ago
He's smart but he doesn't sound like an engineer at this point in his life/career. He sounds like a wealthy person who reads a wide variety of books/tweets and has range of smart but shallow talking points combined with a good deal of practiced hand waving. Chris Dixon sounds exactly like him. I wonder if Marc has written more than a 'hello, world' in the past 5-10 years. He's probably better versed in modern art and finance than he is in computer science or engineering these days.
- dubswithus 4y ago
  Why would he need to be an engineer to be successful in tech? Steve Jobs wasn’t. If a large group of people want crypto it will exist regardless of the engineering merits.
  - lupire 4y ago
    Steve Jobs designed (like product requirements, not technical details) and sold products people loved, for decades. He didn't just make handwavy sales pitches.

quanto 4y ago

The full podcast here: video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNl6Cr1k07c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNl6Cr1k07c transcript and audio: https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/marc-andreessen/ https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/marc-andreessen/

valleyjo 4y ago

at least in this clip that was a big time struggle to communicate the value prop of web3

iqkznnft 4y ago
Communicating what web3 actually is would be a good start.
- astrange 4y ago
  It's when Marc Andreessen sells you unregistered securities.

hansword 4y ago

I was involved in bitcoin in early 2010, so by the time MtGox got hacked, I had already well over a year experience with it, aka the 'honeymoon period' was over. So at that point (Summer 2011), I took a long hard look into the mirror, discussed this with friends, both on- and offline, and everyone was struggling to find real use cases that didn't involve crime. When then, later in 2011, Litecoin and the other alts came on the scene, without any real difference, I left the crypto scene. Now, over 10 years later, the number of real life use cases not involving crime is still scarce. That's a bit embarrassing, if you ask me. (Edit: small correction)

iqkznnft 4y ago
So I guess I was ahead of you. When I asked why something with no use other can facilitating transactions should have value, a friend explained to me "it's like dollar, right? To transact with it you have to obtain it, and that creates demand. Then Bitcoin is finite, and these two facts give it its value". To that I responded "so what's preventing someone from creating bitcoin2, bitcoin3, etc. Nothing, so the supply isn't really finite, and so it should have no value". And so I decided I was out, long before Litecoin came along :-) I was quite young at the time, but I've since learned that just because something has no value, doesn't mean you can't make money trading it.
- kareemsabri 4y ago
  It's interesting because even a recent a16z podcast (an "oral essay" on crypto) argued that scarcity is what made bitcoin valuable. And that "scarcity" + collective belief is what makes things valuable (they claimed the dollar and bitcoin are the same in this regard, just collective belief propping them up). They didn't seem to grasp that there are lots of scarce things nobody cares much about. Dollars are in demand because they provide utility (namely, I need it to buy things and I need to pay my taxes in it). There's probably a third utility, which is having lots of Bitcoin means you have lots of dollars, which means people know you're rich and want to date you, be friends with you, party with you in Miami etc. But it's interesting to notice (this is a bit trite but I think not totally) that people still tally crypto wealth in dollars ("he's a crypto billionaire" doesn't mean he has billions of bitcoins) so the utility of bitcoin seems to implicitly be that it's worth lots of dollars.

RockRobotRock 4y ago

I really dislike anti-web3 sentiment from nontechnical people, but I love hearing it from technical people in the field. Why is that?

iqkznnft 4y ago
> I really dislike anti-web3 sentiment from nontechnical people, but I love hearing it from technical people in the field. Why is that? You like the idea that you're a contrarian.
- RockRobotRock 4y ago
  Maybe you’re right.
kareemsabri 4y ago
perhaps because they are informed and have the expertise to substantiate their positions?

AndrianV 4y ago

Astounding to me that folks working for "likes" on a website couldn't see how Web3 can improve this approach.

secretsatan 4y ago
Each like should cost you a small amount and be slow to process. why can't people see that's an improvement?
- rgoulter 4y ago
  One weird idea I heard was along the lines of "pay $x to read an article; if you didn't like the article, you can choose that the next person who reads it gets refunded". One kindof criticism of social media is that it's very performative. Many solutions I've seen involve the idea of adding some kind of friction. "slow to process" is obviously bad, but the idea of adding costs to things isn't one I'd outright rule out.

aaron695 4y ago

devonallie 4y ago

I want to believe that Web3 can do something more for us but when I hear people evangelize it all the time, scam alarms start ringing. Andreessen speaks too quickly, only in the abstract, and changes points before finishing them. It’s a clever marketing trick that gets the audience to fill in the gaps as it were and leaves no time to consider that nothing of value has actually been said.