i think i want to add to this that im bullish on crypto 'backend' tech seeping its way into many everyday uses, but if you were to ask someone if they use crypto they will say No (even when they are indirectly)

is that an important distinction to make? i think so. a lot of hard tech is unknown to consumers even if its critical to very core functions and habits in their lives

AI is interesting bc while its hard tech, consumers also know when they use AI, they know chatgpt is AI. Im not sure we should expect the same to be true for crypto

what does that mean? it might mean that we should stop trying to "onboard to crypto" and instead focus on getting the tech right (full circle lol)

(stablecoins are one of those things i can see getting very widespread use but most would never reflect on it being crypto, nor would it be natural for the user to open etherscan)

What capabilities are net-new and solve real problems?

UX for crypto is getting so good, it's ready for inclusion under-the-hood.

It's an exciting time to be in crypto because crypto can finally start selling to Web2.

DX Engineer | Head of Developer Relations at /pinata | Building orbiter.host | stevedylan.dev/links | opinions are my own

The easiest static website and web app hosting. Built on /ipfs and /base

Founder, designer, & product guy at /basepaint and /eigenlayer

I'm still not sure it's a real problem, but portability can be solved now. The question is, do people care about vendor lock-in? For example, @stevedylandev.eth and I sell @orbiterhost to web2 and web3. Web3 is far more interested in it because of their inherent belief in decentralization.

Writer. Building @pinatacloud. Working on simple static site hosting https://orbiter.host \ https://polluterofminds.com

Could you say more re: portability? This is account portability, right?

Account and data portability. When you can tie things to open protocols, you can remove walled gardens. And with the UX we have now, it can feel like the traditional web.