@base contributor #001; onchain cities w/ OAK & city3

how do you see the balance between making crypto more accessible vs not completely putting a web2 wrapper on top.

crypto needs to be seen. that’s what makes it special.

I don't think it makes sense to put a web2 wrapper around onchain - it breaks the best parts of crypto in fundamental ways (e.g. composability)

I do think we should hold onchain products to the same quality bar as web2 (really high!) and that it's only just become possible to meet or exceed it thanks to infra progress

@base builder #001; onchain cities w/ OAK & city3

agreed.

crypto needs to be seen & understood, not buried behind abstractions.

better terminology is crypto needs to be more practical.

its fundamental attributes r distinct, & hiding them undermines the full potential it possesses.

build better front ends, educate, & show users how to appreciate those attributes.

exploring the matrix onchain 🌀 | ops wizard 🪄 | hosting /defi • /the-glyph • /pixelglyphs • /autism


product marketing lead @espressosys // prev marketing work for @gauntlet @coinbase @darkblock // 10+ yrs in biz journalism // dad x2 👨‍👦‍👦

hard disagree.

framing it wrong imo.

crypto is not an app layer that we are iterating on. this mentality comes from leaning to how web2 services were built.

it’s an entire new form of internet and how users interact on it.

users will learn and come to appreciate it. 

people wanted personal computers in 1998? no.

Without abstracting away some of the complexities, crypto will never penetrate a mainstream audience.

Easy to say we should educate normies & teach them to appreciate crypto’s attributes — not easy in practice. Most people just want to be entertained or have their problems solved — they don’t care about tech