I just find it a little concerning that there are people out there, who are blindly following this Web3 "trend" by spending their money on digital "art".
For the average person, there is no real use for Web3 because there is no actual definition for it.
My impression is that Web3 is being praised as decentralized, yet it is people with a lot of money who are the one's regulating the pace right now.
And that is a tad bit concerning to say the least, because if I invest millions into something (whether as an individual or a VC) - I'd like to feel a sense of "ownership", otherwise that money could have been spent helping real causes.
I'd go as far as saying that for most people, including those entrenched in spending their hard earned money, the word Web3 is immediately associated with NFTs, not the actual blockchain technology. And that says a lot.
> otherwise that money could have been spent helping real causes
It bleeds their personal opinion and hampers the debate. Apperently you think "digital art", or cryptocurrencies are not a "real cause". Which begs the question: who defines what "a real cause" is? The International World Causes Committee?
Isn't anything that people want to spend money (resources) on by definition a real and worthy cause to at least those people?
Not OP but no. If someone buys in to a multi-level marketing scheme and starts peddling weight loss pills on Facebook, they certainly have spent real money on that and yet it is not a worthy cause because their only expectation is profit. NFTs have the possibility that the buyer is just genuinely a collector with no concern whatsoever for the value of the asset, but art collection is largely a financial venture. Not to mention that this simple art purchase contributed to higher gas fees for everyone else - why should we have to suffer just because you purchased something? - I don’t consider that a worthy “cause” at all.
In this space, you can donate to the EFF, sponsor open source projects, use services with subscription models over advertising models, donate to charities expanding internet and computing access globally, etc. which are all more “cause worthy” than buying digital art alone.
I'm talking about ownership, more specifically - market control. I don't care about "Web3" if a handful of people/companies are the one's controlling its growth.
It's so stupid it actually hurts my brain just to type it.
Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, Coinbase Ventures, Paradigm (founded by former partners of both Sequoia and Coinbase), Solana Ventures, and surprisingly quite a few Facebook alums (Anthony Pompliamo, Chamath Palihapitiya)
I think that, as with any debate, “worthwhile causes” cannot be defined so absolutely.
I know people who “want” to spend money on addictive and destructive drugs, because they’re continuously compelled by a pathological chemical imbalance to do so.
Does that mean an addiction to heroin or Xanax is a “real and worthy cause”? How about an addiction to online gambling with generative art of monkeys/lions/pixel art?
There's far more innocuous examples, such as french fries and soda and sweets. Is it a real and worthy cause for someone to create a restaurant that serves junk food? Junk food that causes diabetes and heart disease?
Apparently it's okay to be Coca-Cola or McDonald's or Mars. Those are real and worthy corps blessed by boomers of yore.
If someone is addicted to gambling, there are plenty of casinos which are also worthwhile businesses apparently. Legal in many states, nations and territories.
Again, none of this can be defined so absolutely. That is my point. And all of the things you mention are already regulated (gambling, etc.), or under consideration for regulation (such as New York City banning soda [0]).
I'm not saying that I'm for or against these regulations, but obviously there are boundaries where society needs to intervene, in one way or another. Portugal handled their drug problem in a very innovative way [1], and that's my preferred modal for ending the "drug war" (decriminalization and support for addicts). But it's still some form of regulation.
For the average person, there is no real use for Web3 because there is no actual definition for it.
My impression is that Web3 is being praised as decentralized, yet it is people with a lot of money who are the one's regulating the pace right now.
And that is a tad bit concerning to say the least, because if I invest millions into something (whether as an individual or a VC) - I'd like to feel a sense of "ownership", otherwise that money could have been spent helping real causes.
I'd go as far as saying that for most people, including those entrenched in spending their hard earned money, the word Web3 is immediately associated with NFTs, not the actual blockchain technology. And that says a lot.