The whole Web3 thing seems like absurd technological determinism to me. Breaking from the dominance of Facebook, Twitter and Google doesn't depend on new technology. The alternatives we have seen emerging recently - Substack, Bluesky, Fediverse and so on - aren't built on blockchains or other new tech, but on innovations in the way we use what's essentially Web1 tech.
I would have thought it obvious that when VCs invest heavily in a technology, they expect a large return - possibly by extracting rents in some way.
As fot Web3 being based on blockchain - AFAIK, blockchains are slow because they are CPU resource intensive, and they do not scale well. Crytography is inherent and not an issue (IMO), but the use of currency tokens like Bitcoin has fulfilled its promise as a way to avoid surveillance. But while it was originally suggested as a way to avoid being tracked in a a cashless society, instead it has become the preferred method of paying for illegal items. Just as porn was highly innovative with teh WWW, so cryptocurrenciy become bent to criminal activities.
There is a perennial dance between centralization and decentralization. When in business, in IT technology, and in governance. The balace always keeps shifting. A decentralized web sounds attractive until one realizes that this exposes your systems to attackers, which can be better resisted by centralized entities. Pros and cons. You make your choice and live with it.
The major failing of the web is the "enshittification" by the major players. This seems solvable by enforcing anti-trust and forcing companies to be interoperable and not walled gardens. It is not clear to me that Web3 needs to be part of the needed solution, rather than what so far looks like a "solution" searching for problems to solve.
The best (only?) thing about crypto is that it funded Nvidia to design the chips and software that power LLM's. A bubble's investment made useful. Though so far we are using LLM's to bs ourselves and burn a lot of fossil fuels.
Any of us can be enamored by crypto, web3, or SPAC's. What scares me is that those who were 3 for 3 are now pitching AI. Which means there may be more AI mal-investment than railroads, radio, and dot com combined.
And when does TSMC look at the market cap of their customers and decide to move up the SMILE curve? Then woe (and whoa) unto TSMC's customers.
The problem with Web3 is actually the same as the problem which you highlight in Slouching. That is to say, the torrential pace at which modern technology advances occurs too rapidly for the tepid pace of evolution of governance institutions. Since Web3 runs on Internet time, the lag in governance is particularly stark. The common thread across both situations is that those on the bleeding edge of technology will exploit their early mover advantages in their own interests, I.e. walled gardens.
It seems to me, a good start would be a serious revision of intellectual property rights so as to avoid creating opportunities for exploitable monopoly power. How you might get there is beyond my modest intellectual capacities.
The whole Web3 thing seems like absurd technological determinism to me. Breaking from the dominance of Facebook, Twitter and Google doesn't depend on new technology. The alternatives we have seen emerging recently - Substack, Bluesky, Fediverse and so on - aren't built on blockchains or other new tech, but on innovations in the way we use what's essentially Web1 tech.
CV Wedge wood's best book was the one on The Thirty Year's War. What a truly depressing time.
Wikipedia on Web3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3
I would have thought it obvious that when VCs invest heavily in a technology, they expect a large return - possibly by extracting rents in some way.
As fot Web3 being based on blockchain - AFAIK, blockchains are slow because they are CPU resource intensive, and they do not scale well. Crytography is inherent and not an issue (IMO), but the use of currency tokens like Bitcoin has fulfilled its promise as a way to avoid surveillance. But while it was originally suggested as a way to avoid being tracked in a a cashless society, instead it has become the preferred method of paying for illegal items. Just as porn was highly innovative with teh WWW, so cryptocurrenciy become bent to criminal activities.
There is a perennial dance between centralization and decentralization. When in business, in IT technology, and in governance. The balace always keeps shifting. A decentralized web sounds attractive until one realizes that this exposes your systems to attackers, which can be better resisted by centralized entities. Pros and cons. You make your choice and live with it.
The major failing of the web is the "enshittification" by the major players. This seems solvable by enforcing anti-trust and forcing companies to be interoperable and not walled gardens. It is not clear to me that Web3 needs to be part of the needed solution, rather than what so far looks like a "solution" searching for problems to solve.
The best (only?) thing about crypto is that it funded Nvidia to design the chips and software that power LLM's. A bubble's investment made useful. Though so far we are using LLM's to bs ourselves and burn a lot of fossil fuels.
Any of us can be enamored by crypto, web3, or SPAC's. What scares me is that those who were 3 for 3 are now pitching AI. Which means there may be more AI mal-investment than railroads, radio, and dot com combined.
And when does TSMC look at the market cap of their customers and decide to move up the SMILE curve? Then woe (and whoa) unto TSMC's customers.
The problem with Web3 is actually the same as the problem which you highlight in Slouching. That is to say, the torrential pace at which modern technology advances occurs too rapidly for the tepid pace of evolution of governance institutions. Since Web3 runs on Internet time, the lag in governance is particularly stark. The common thread across both situations is that those on the bleeding edge of technology will exploit their early mover advantages in their own interests, I.e. walled gardens.
It seems to me, a good start would be a serious revision of intellectual property rights so as to avoid creating opportunities for exploitable monopoly power. How you might get there is beyond my modest intellectual capacities.
Reminds me of an older Peanuts strip the punchline of which was Linus saying of his sister, "She'd rather curse the darkness."