Karthik Senthil pfp
Karthik Senthil
@karthiksenthil
Why "web3" is ngmi https://i.imgur.com/9ld1bvW.png
18 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Nathan Snell pfp
Nathan Snell
@nathansnell
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
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Liu pfp
Dan Liu
@danliu
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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Chris Dixon pfp
Chris Dixon
@cdixon.eth
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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Welly pfp
Welly
@welly
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?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Luodi Wang pfp
Luodi Wang
@luodiwg
So agree to this, maybe ~web5 is better? @jackdorsey
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Agost Biro pfp
Agost Biro
@agostbiro
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
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Amit Mukherjee pfp
Amit Mukherjee
@amitmukherjee
Well articulated
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Matt Rickard pfp
Matt Rickard
@mattrickard
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).
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ben 🟪 pfp
Ben 🟪
@benersing
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.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Peter Kim pfp
Peter Kim
@peter
@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
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
gumdalf pfp
gumdalf
@0xarun
The bit I agree with is how we end up antagonising web2 founders.. even VC have become ‘traditional VC’ when they are web2.. 😂
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
gumdalf pfp
gumdalf
@0xarun
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
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
steve pfp
steve
@stevef
i always make it an effort to avoid using web3 and replacing it with crypto/blockchain. this is a great post.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
humpty pfp
humpty
@humpty.eth
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.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Emma pfp
Emma
@emma
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
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
drew fagin 🌊 pfp
drew fagin 🌊
@drews.eth
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
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction