Thread
Spent too much time today digging through this and all of the bashing of Packy and web3.
First off, I would just tip my hat to @packyM. Crystal ball of the future aside, seeing web3 leaders take the high ground gives me a lot of confidence.
On the arguments themselves...
First off, I would just tip my hat to @packyM. Crystal ball of the future aside, seeing web3 leaders take the high ground gives me a lot of confidence.
On the arguments themselves...
It reminds me of the famously bad debate around the danger of AI.
AI skeptics: "it's horribly dangerous"
AI advocates: "it's not dangerous at all"
Endless mud slinging ensues.
It turns out the missing piece to have a productive debate is when you agree on the time horizon.
AI skeptics: "it's horribly dangerous"
AI advocates: "it's not dangerous at all"
Endless mud slinging ensues.
It turns out the missing piece to have a productive debate is when you agree on the time horizon.
The argument is not set up well. Skeptics hurl doomsday situations, and advocates respond by pointing out how "stupid" the technology is currently.
Neither is truly in disagreement with the other. They simply disagree on how long it will take to go from stupid to dangerous.
Neither is truly in disagreement with the other. They simply disagree on how long it will take to go from stupid to dangerous.
To me, the flaw in the web3 debate is that believers see it as a network of marketplaces (and therefore judges the utility post cold-start) while skeptics view it purely as a technology (and therefore only looks at it in the present moment).
Yes @packyM's real estate example was a dud, but it's because the wrong way to look at web3 is as a pure technology that solves a problem 10X better than an existing solution. It's not a robo-vacuum. Web3 is a network of marketplaces, so it has a classic chicken and egg problem.
Consider the reverse question. Imagine that all forms of ownership (real estate, equity, membership, art) were stored and exchanged digitally rather than on pieces of paper.
Now ask the question of how easy or valuable it would be to launch a new solution using paper. Not very.
Now ask the question of how easy or valuable it would be to launch a new solution using paper. Not very.
The skeptic's argument is that if it isn't a 10x solution, then the status quo will win. But this is where not thinking of web3 as a network gets you intro trouble.
All networks need to find scrappy/hacky ways to solve the cold start problem. Web2 knows this best.
All networks need to find scrappy/hacky ways to solve the cold start problem. Web2 knows this best.
Btw I say digital storage/exchange because not everything needs to go on a blockchain. But some important things do, when the entity storing and exchanging the asset does not have the right incentives or trust to ensure that storage and exchange themselves.
I'm not claiming to have all of the answers, but I'm not discouraged by the 'gotcha' argument of "you will have to rebuild all of these pieces of the current system!" because the gist of that argument is "it's gonna be f'ing hard to get this network off the ground"
It always is.
It always is.
I would love to see better structured debates on this topic. If you follow my logic, there are two. First:
Take as assumed that paper forms of ownership will disappear eventually because, well, it's paper. This is debate in which "are blockchains a 10x solution?" makes sense.
Take as assumed that paper forms of ownership will disappear eventually because, well, it's paper. This is debate in which "are blockchains a 10x solution?" makes sense.
Would you trust the government to maintain the database of everything you own, or would you also want some version of it just like you have the paper version of the deed to your house? How would that work? What about for smaller things like your university diploma?
This is not a reverse gotcha - I think there are some very interesting debates to have in that hypothetical future world. But the argument that doesn't work is the fairly useless "you'd have to print out the NFT and bring it to the courtroom!" You won't, trust me.
The second debate is: "how long will it take to get to full digital ownership of everything that matters to us?" Surely nobody sees paper ownership in 200 years, so rather than "you'd have to rebuild all of the existing systems" the argument would be how long it will take.
I've rambled too much already but last thing is that if you view web3 as a network, then it's obvious why "NFTs for house deeds" is a tough place to start. Low frequency, high friction, lots of regulation. Web2 invented the 'growth hackers' that preach that gospel.
As successful marketplaces are added to the web3 network, the network effect improves because the goods in those marketplaces can be remixed to create value that is more than linear. That's why many of the first marketplaces look like toys and scams - easy to get off the ground.
TL/DR:
- Packy is awesome
- We need thoughtfully structured debates that can help us all gain some clarity
- Web3 is a network of marketplaces that needs to "do things that don't scale" until it hits the inflection point. Bashing those things is not a satisfying gotcha.
- Packy is awesome
- We need thoughtfully structured debates that can help us all gain some clarity
- Web3 is a network of marketplaces that needs to "do things that don't scale" until it hits the inflection point. Bashing those things is not a satisfying gotcha.
