jesse.base.eth 🔵
@jessepollak
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
7 replies
19 recasts
119 reactions
Andrew Jiang 🎩
@ok
Has become a lot easier over the past cycle. Viable L2s, good user facing infra (eg @privy) and of course a lot of talented builders that were onboarded in the last cycle and have been heads down grinding in the bear.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Rani
@4484
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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ben - [C/x]
@benersing
What's an example of a “web2 wrapper”?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Koray
@koraykoska
You would basically reject any non-IPFS hosted frontends to interact with smart contracts. There always needs to be a balance
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Bitfloorsghost
@bitfloorsghost.eth
fan of this take
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
punks
@punks
You are right web2 shouldn’t wrap web3, web3 should wrap both web2 & RWAs bringing them onchain.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Alexis 🖼️ 🎩
@alexxxis.eth
651 $degen
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
![Ben - [C/x] pfp](https://i.imgur.com/qdfZSol.gif)
