2 min read

Web3 & Crypto

Nothing beats the database

Let me start off by saying that I'm a believer of what blockchain can bring but I'm not a fan of current implementations today. Here's a few of my thoughts.

Web3 Companies make no sense

Just this phrase (Web3 and Company together) feels contradictory. Web3 is supposed to decentralize the data that today's "Web 2.0" currently centralizes. For example, you should be able to take a copy of your photos from one service and use it with another service easily. However, this is contradictory to what companies are supposed to be. Companies are profit generating (or supposed to be) and they earn $ by holding onto that data. If you leave their service, they are not earning money anymore, whether it be through ad or direct sales revenue. Companies and Web3 just aren't incentivized to work together.

P.S. If that Web3 company that you're bought into has shareholders, you can bet that they're not in it for you.

99% of projects are trash

This gets debated a ton, but I'll just reiterate some of those thoughts in a few bullet points:

  • No published smart contract means founders/creators have mysterious and undisclosed ways to interact with the contract (aka rug pull). Isn't the point of smart contracts supposed to be that can trust but verify?
  • No utility, no value. Utility helps generate the value of an asset. There are a few NFTs and communities that do provide that but 99% don't.
  • There is almost no (or fake) liquidity in every project. Your NFT/Cryptocurrency isn't worth $10,000 if the only one trading it is the owner. Please do your due diligence here, you have no idea how many projects are just being passed around to the same few people to pump the price.

Cost of data is the biggest hurdle for Web3

One of the biggest hurdles today is data and storing that is expensive. Companies rely on profits to offset this cost. That photo you post on Twitter isn't free so how is Web3 going to overcome this cost? By charging you money of course! Today's society pays $0 to host a photo on Web2 so how is it that Web3 is going to convince billions to pay even just a dollar (which can be expensive in most third-world countries).

Until we can solve this, Web3 is a gimmick. That hurdle is beating AWS S3 pricing (which currently charges $0.01 per GB per month at its lowest tier).

The same argument can be said here with "what makes this different than building it in a database?" If it's hard to answer this question, it isn't meant to be.

Web3 is just a buzzword and what we really need is competition and Open Source

A lot of Web3 parts existed 10 years ago, we just decided that it's cheaper and more affordable to centralize a lot of those technologies. For example, DNS, Anycast, P2P, all have existed before Web3, we just choose not to host them ourselves. Cloudflare, AWS, and Google all have taken advantage of this and when these services do go down, a lot of the internet we know today goes down (which, in my opinion, is a good thing).

We should instead help support the growth of Open Source by allowing anyone to build upon each other's technologies. Better technologies give us the ability to launch distributed and decentralized services more easily which helps us compete against centralized service companies! If you guessed it, there's not a lot of money in Open Source which makes building companies around Web3 completely counter-intuitive!