I'm trying to think of examples of technologies that were innovative and basically worked, but weren't potent enough to overcome the skepticism eventually, and/or couldn't overcome the deadweight of externalities. 

Not potent enough: flying cars
Couldn't overcome externalities: nuclear rockets

Any others?

Blogger at ribbonfarm.com, running summerofprotocols.com, host of /gloom ☀️

Segways used to be an example, but then they turned it around. The battery/motor tech got capable enough that the sidewalk vehicle category explored into a much larger variety and smaller form factor, even though the original Segway was too big and too early and too useless.

Reason I'm thinking about this is that the serious bear case for crypto is that it is one of these two things. The fear that the negative externalities are too much of a deadweight I think is largely gone at least from Ethereum (PoW --> PoS) and bitcoin may or may not overcome it. But the "not potent enough" worries me

While there are many clever use cases, even weirdly unprecedented and magical seeming ones, so far, nobody has found a true killer app. A potent use case that overwhelms skeptical derision.

In a way it's a good thing crypto is practically a "taboo space" as one e-girl who left friend tech said. Good challenge.

I think people in crypto who think the thing to do is to woo the hostile influencers who have made it a taboo space are barking up the wrong tree. Not only is that not going to happen, it's the wrong goal. The trick would be to find an application so impossible to not adopt, people are willing to break the taboo

The taboo is in fact a very good market signal. It is the minimum viable value level. If you can't create an application that is potent enough in value that people will risk the displeasure of taboo-enforcers to adopt it, you're dead in the water, and deserve to be.

Like, think of the taboos against using modern medicine and stuff issued by the priests of religions early in the modern era. If you were in need of modern medicine badly enough to risk the displeasure of priests discouraging or even forbidding its use, that said something about the potency of the tabooed innovation

If this is the case, then I think we don't have a case. Hedge against centralization is not a potent enough use case, and not a complete enough hedge anyway. Revolts are a cheaper and more complete mechanism.

If this is the case, then I think we don't have a case. Hedge against centralization is not a potent enough use case, and not a complete enough hedge anyway. Revolts are a cheaper and more complete mechanism. https://warpcast.com/kenyiexyz/0x3a1178

Feels like there's a need for a systematic move towards more potent value applications. I suspect the reason we're trapped in this local minimum of crap applications is that we're trying to port Web2 consumer social web tech to blockchains and that was barely enough value even when they were able to give it away free

Ie social media web2 tech might actually be a good response to my original prompt. It only existed for a while because of zero interest rate economics and stealing ad revenue from trad media in zero-sum ways. Twitter and Reddit fates show how that fails. Trying to redo Web2 with *more* friction is a non-starter

So anything that looks like "social media with extra steps" should be dropped. Blockchain needs apps with a) order of magnitude higher value prop b) ruggedization against 3-4% interest rates b) enough potency to be an incentive to break taboos (which costs political capital)

The interest rate argument by the way is fundamental. It remains even if traditional fiat and nation states start to decline rapidly. Market economies will still be driven by natural interest rates based on environmental risk and predictability, and apps will need to deliver a return beyond that.

I suspect taboo will eventually go away because it's fundamentally based on resentment and personal dislike of tech people, but it may not be for a while. The one somewhat principled reason for hostility (energy consumption of PoW) is now gone. Now it's just down to vague "it's all scams" ad hominems. But still potent.

Flying cars are fascinating, because they've been kinda possible for decades, and they get somewhat lighter and more capable every cycle, but there's fundamental limits to how convenient they can get due to power/weight ratio and power-supply physics. But the bigger problem is that they're simply not that useful.

Co-founder @bountycaster (bountycaster.xyz). Co-producer @ethereumfilm. Previously co-founder of Scalar Capital and product at Coinbase

There's a book "Invention and Innovation: A Brief History of Hype and Failure" that covers this topic if interested. It specifically goes into airships, nuclear fission, and supersonic flight as examples

Building /bright-moments - minting onchain art IRL | /purple #15 | FID 129 #magikarp

Rome, Metropolitan City of Rome Capital, Italy

Hummers as a consumer tech, yes, but they're a fine military vehcle
Palm pilots I think should be counted as a successful bridge technology to the smartphone. While they were dominant, they were mainstream enough.

Supersonic business travel and seasteading I think are solid examples.

The Japan swipe :D

Supersonic business travel 
Seasteading
Hummers
Palm Pilot
Everything Japan invented in the 90s

they're still kinda there as a backend plumbing technology even though they didn't make it as a consumer media technology

rss feeds not potent enough and couldnt overcome the externalities of centralized feeds

This is a good example to think about. It demonstrated a lot of features that eventually made it into Slack, Discord, messengers, and even Gmail, but the Wave model itself I agree worked but was not potent enough to be worth it. I remember being kinda excited by it but then meh about it a little later.

Complexity explorer. Residing in the liminal.

Is that failed or simply not yet technologically viable at a meaningful scale?

"Not potent enough" has more way examples if one includes products that only have niche/limited adoption:
0. Jetpacks
1. 3D Televisions
2. QR Codes for Payments in Western Markets
3. Speech recognition as a UI / Alexa
4. Smart Home Technology
5. Satellite Phones
6. Robotic Pets / Aibo

gold synthesis using proton bombardment.

A lot of people ignore the fact that today we can literally do alchemy.

WE CAN TURN LEAD INTO GOLD PEOPLE
(at the low low price of a bajillion dollars a gram)

at least nuclear rockets is making a  comeback.

at least nuclear rockets is making a  comeback.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-darpa-will-test-nuclear-engine-for-future-mars-missions

oh yeah, graphene / carbon nanotubes. basically manufacturing costs

a million stories of battery technology fit in here

the science works, but manufacturing + supply chain is a hellscape

I’m having trouble thinking of any 

There are no extenuating circumstances for crypto’s lack of adoption which matter in the end IMO

It’s shit or get off the pot o’clock

(Western) QR codes

Functional, useful, but basically ignored until phone cameras + mobile internet + pandemic menus combined to overcome inertia and push them into use

I think “crypto” will become both ubiquitous and invisible. It’s more like electricity and the internet than flying cars or nuclear rockets. It’s a substrate not an industry. It’s a means not an end. The killer app is that it enables new killer apps.

Flying cars are not a good idea even if they would be technically feasible. Other examples that come to mind: supersonic jets, Dvorak keyboard, Linux for normies and torrents