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
Ben Scharfstein
@scharf
The problem is that onchain != web3. Farcaster is web3 but casts aren't onchain. IMO it's important (at least for developers) to call out the web3 parts of farcaster (sufficient decentralization, permisionlessness, data portability) even though it's not onchain.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
This is a very good pt! Hopefully (probably?) in the long run these two things converge. But my main pt is about SIMPLIFYING presentation to consumers, and out of the options, I still like onchain > web3 for branding purposes, for reasons stated above.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
