Brian Armstrong
@barmstrong
Hello @jessepollak and Faryar Shirzad https://i.imgur.com/6VTBgzJ.jpg
10 replies
2 recasts
27 reactions
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
Hope this topic was on the docket: Rebrand “web3” —> “onchain”
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Noah Bragg 🐟🥔
@nbragg
Interesting proposal. What do you have against the name web3?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
1. Avg consumer doesnt know what "web2" is. That's an insider thing. 2. "onchain" is like the new "online" – it's a state with a value proposition. 3. I can see my 65 y/o dad saying "but is that onchain? and not "but is that web3?" 4. "chain" speaks to a fundamental technical property. "3" is wholly conventional.
4 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Bozo.eth
@nj
Definitely. Onchain makes a lot of sense. Even conceptually when we as developers are designing a system, usually we're thinking about which parts go onchain and which parts can be put offchain. It's good branding and describes what is happening underneath pretty well.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
