I think "web3" is clever counter positioning. Incumbents find it hard to respond without damaging their core biz (from a marketing perspective). Could Google come out with a "web3" product today? Probably not (and not for lack of expertise).
I think about your last point often. Would include terms like blockchains and NFTs as well. The average non-tech person doesn’t care. Needs to be abstracted away or rebranded. Reminds me of: https://steviep.xyz/txt/web3-hype-anti-hype
I get where for you’re coming from, but imo Web3 is great to rally the builders. We should just stop shilling it to users until we deliver
I feel like part of the shift towards using web3 is because crypto has some negative associations - ie people say “crypto bro” but not “web3 bro”. I do agree though that showing utility over using buzzwords is the way to go towards greater adoption
i always make it an effort to avoid using web3 and replacing it with crypto/blockchain. this is a great post.
Agreed. Language is an important piece to the whole. We need to tell better stories about experiences that stand independent of technology and are desirable to non crypto natives too.
Disagree, web2 VS web3 is not an upgrade - its a transition. From one way of doing business to another. Web2 is superior to web3 in scalability, user experience etc. We just inherit that, with an inclusive incentive mechanism. BC is not just a tech, it’s a economic framework
The bit I agree with is how we end up antagonising web2 founders.. even VC have become ‘traditional VC’ when they are web2.. 😂
I really like web3 concept but agree with you on some of the points - here's a longer text (didn't fit into a readable screenshot) https://macbudkowski.substack.com/p/most-people-dont-care-about-decentralization
btw here's the original definition of web3, coined by Gavin Wood in 2014: https://gavwood.com/dappsweb3.html
So agree to this, maybe ~web5 is better? @jackdorsey
describe the capabilities normal people should care about without saying crypto/web3/decentralized/open or referring to investment potential, and what are you left with?
The same could have been said for 'mobile' - it's a new medium that can be applied to everything. Definitely a difference in priorities between web3 zealots and newcomers. But if you separate out fundamental concepts like ownership, then what's the point?
I don’t really get the leap from “we need great products” (agree) to “web3 is a bad term”. Web2 added to web1 and was useful term for describing and accelerating of a nascent movement.
@perl great writing that aligns to my thinking that web3 paradigms are a toolkit to be used to create better products, not a product in itself
I think web3 is a good term. It’s just we haven’t made it happen yet. If we call mobile web web2, then web3 today is like web2 in 2006. Wait until it gets to 2015.
web3 is a leap in existing digital relations by adding consensus protocols to the mix, yet there is no consensus without a quorum and there is no quorum without community. therefore web3 IS community, and their empowerment through transparency, ownership and collaborative efforts
Well stated though I don’t think “web3” needs to go away. In the future every app will interact with blockchain in some way. Most users won’t care anymore than they care whether what they binge on Netflix came from GCP or AWS. To the point of the piece - they’ll care about value
I have no issue with “web3” as a term. It makes logical sense to me. We're not there yet though. So for people not steeped in it, it's a confusing misnomer as it's currently an aspirational BHAG. It'll be a better term to market and bridge people over once it's more robust.