Jack Dorsey caused an uproar with a bizarre Web3 Twitter rant | Hacker News Reader

Jack Dorsey caused an uproar with a bizarre Web3 Twitter rant

engadget.com

53 pointsriffic30 comments

There's a certain irony here given that his massive wealth is because of VCs and his involvement with them (read: designing a product whose focus was returning gains on their investment) on Web 2.0.

I don't disagree with the point he's making here, and I'll acquiesce that his involvement with VCs/Web 2.0 gives him a unique perspective, but I just don't want to hear from someone who absolutely has been a huge part of the problem for the last decade or more.

I think the same should be said of Chris Dixon / a16z / pretty much every VC-turned-cryptoEnthusiast. I hate hearing them talk about making things better for people in 3rd world countries and helping starving artists - it's all a joke. These guys have raised billions of dollars from some of the wealthiest and most powerful institutions and families to invest in this "decentralized future", and certainly not to help 3rd world citizens and artists.

exactly.

people who have made an identity and a fortune from concentrating wealth and influence around themselves have absolutely no interest in "decentralizing" it.

decentralization is for thee and not for me

Chris Dixon (https://twitter.com/cdixon) posts some particularly outrageous and as far as I'm concerned, disingenuous comments on this topic. I would be ashamed to be associated with him.

I don't see the evidence of him being disingenuous..

But is he claiming anywhere that Web 2.0 was not like that? Like, I see this as "you are no better than I: I can see through your facade because you are just doing what we did, despite claiming otherwise".

Rejecting feedback and input from people who have direct experience in a relevant matter doesn’t seem very wise to me.

Nothing bizzare about the rant attacking web3's centralization problem, everything he said was true.

Twitter too is some VC guided money making attempt. Two main differences. First, Twitter doesn't hide that fact. Second, Twitter actually delivers a useful product.

Ethereum et al are pretty big practical failures. I have some Ethereum from way back when I bought some Urbit stuff and recently I tried using an Ethereum "web3 defi" thing. Huge transfer fees to the point where I'd either have to be making large transactions or it's not worthwhile in the slightest. Unusable as money and all smart contracts seem to be ways of making different kinds of coins.

>>recently I tried using an Ethereum "web3 defi" thing. Huge transfer fees to the point where I'd either have to be making large transactions or it's not worthwhile in the slightest

Ethereum is only economical to use for huge financial transactions, like transferring $100,000 in USDC, or succinct, consensus critical programs, like zk-S[NT]ARK proofs for batched account updates. The latter enables economical every day use of Ethereum layer 1 consensus via layer 2 platforms:

https://l2beat.com

He's right. Say what you will about his own past/present with VCs but the content of what he's saying is true. Centralization isn't something you can out-engineer with incentive structures it's deeply human.

"bizarre"

Is this the fallacy known as "Appeal to ridicule"?

Its a fallacy if you try to present it as a logical refutation to an argument. Using bizarre as a descriptive term for an action while not passing it off as a rebuttal is a matter of opinion.

There is nothing more out of touch than a news article about a tweet lol. What about this was “bizarre”?

Great take, honestly. Web3 is essentially just a more convoluted way to federate based on a decentralized database. But in platform capitalism, there are zero incentives to federate. For instance, your gaming NFT will work with one publisher, likely only in one game (have an NFT for Generic Football Game 2021? It'll be useless in 2022, I promise). It will mostly be exploited for the promise of what it could be and not for practical reasons. Also because we already build decentralized federated systems without decentralized consensus. Like the Fediverse.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

He probably speaks from personal experience with Twitter. Just read his body language over the last few years.

I still don't trust anyone who willingly agrees to work for a company that has committed to anti-USA, anti-liberty, anti-freedom and other tyrannical rules and procedures.

I still won't hire anyone with "Twitter" on their resume because if they couldn't make the moral and ethical judgement to leave; they are fundamentally compromised and should never be trusted again. Black listed!!

I made a submission [1] about this today too, but it didn't generate any comments. I was hoping to have a discussion regarding how Bitcoin / crypto / web3 is often grouped into one category. Jack Dorsey is making a distinction here that they are not the same thing. This specific tweet [2] sticks out for me:

> You don’t own “web3.”

> The VCs and their LPs do. It will never escape their incentives. It’s ultimately a centralized entity with a different label.

> Know what you’re getting into…

I know there are concerns with Bitcoin's energy consumption, but I still think it's one of the most innovative things to come in the last decade, and I don't think it should be grouped with things like NFTs, etc.

I like some other altcoins, like Ethereum and some other smart contract platforms, so I'm not just a Bitcoin maximalist. However, personally I think NFTs are a lot of hype. I don't think Bitcoin is the same as that. There were no early VC investors in Bitcoin (with the exception of Tim Draper, but he wasn't invested from the start of the network).

Now the VCs are looking for the next big altcoin and investing in that. I.e. some altcoins that I even think have potential, like Solana, are also heavily VC backed. In that regard people should also know what they are getting into.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29642794

[2] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1473139010197508098

Just because there weren't early VCs into bitcoin doesn't mean that most BTC is distributed fairly amongst a large portion of people. Most BTC seems to be owned and controlled by a fairly small concentration of wealthy people at this point. It will do no good for average people, so it shouldn't be hyped as "a form of "freedom" or "revolution" or anything of that sort - it's just another asset for wealthy people to buy up.

Isn't this always going to be the case with money, especially hard money. Partially due to the definition of "wealthy"? The money appears to be unfairly distributed amongst the wealthy people. Yes! Thats how money works! If you have a lot of it, guess what, you are now a wealthy person.

Absolutely, but the bitcoin maximalists (including Jack Dorsey) should stop evangelizing it as the solution to so many societal problems when it's indistinguishable from any other asset at this point.

There is a fundamental. difference to why they evangelise this as correcting a root problem of fiat money. Fiat money causes price distortion and monetisation of non-monetary assets. It also acts as a constant handbrake of people heavily reliant on holding the medium of exchange - most notably poorer people, salary earners. Fixing this removes a very large systemic impediment to more universally fair system (not equal distribution) to achieve prosperity and social mobility. It isn't a panacea, but a significant improvement on the status quo.

I don't disagree with the problem statement. I just disagree with the proposed solution. How is an expensive asset supposed to help poor people?

Does the term "expensive" really make sense for an infinitely divisible medium of exchange? Can money be more or less "affordable"? The more meaningful metrics are purchasing power and historical and expected purchasing power, and the confidence of that. By this metric, regardless of price, if it can realistically expect to have its purchasing power increase, then it is helpful to poor people for saving.

I agree, and I imagine it's seen as "expensive" due to the psychology of people wanting to own one whole of something, i.e. a whole Bitcoin, in this case.

However, due to the 21 million max supply cap, not even everyone in the world today can own a whole Bitcoin.

Measuring things in satoshis (100 millionth of a bitcoin) will probably become more common, assuming demand continues to increase. I think it will, due to Bitcoin's scarcity, and the ever increasing realization of the need for a hard asset, as inflationary monetary policies continue around the world.

I also think an important distinction is that several of the other popular cryptos do not have a hard supply cap, or it's so high as to not matter.

Ethereum does not have a hard supply cap. With EIP-1559, some ETH is burned, causing some deflationary pressure, but still, there is no max cap in place at this time. The Shiba Inu meme coin has a 1 quadrillion supply cap, which is so high as to not matter at all. People can own a bunch of Shiba Inu, and maybe they like having a high number of something, but IMO, it just doesn't have the long term resilience of Bitcoin.

By the way I'm not hating on Ethereum, I think it has a place too, but Bitcoin is different. I have no idea why people invest in Shiba Inu except just to try to ride momentum, but I don't see how that will work out well long term (or maybe they believe in ShibaSwap, I'm not sure).

Anyway going back to Bitcoin, another benefit is allowing the unbanked to economically participate with others using digital money just by having a smartphone or computer, and an internet connection. Otherwise they have to rely on physical cash.

The hard money aspect of Bitcoin, and the ability to transfer money to anyone across the world over the internet, even the unbanked, are two aspects that I consider a "revolution". I do think Bitcoin needs the Lightning Network to scale, but I don't see any issue with that.

Regardless of the divisible nature, it's still an asset - not money. Poor people don't have enough to invest in assets. They live week to week with enough cash to buy shelter, food, and the bare necessities. If they do have enough to save, it makes more sense to keep that savings in cash so they can pay for unexpected incidents and needs without having to first convert BTC into their local currency.

Yes, I agree with you, at least until Bitcoin is accepted widely, which I think is only a matter of time. At that time, there is no need to transfer to local currency, if Bitcoin is the global monetary standard and accepted for all day to day expenses as well as for larger expenses like real estate. At that point it's beyond an asset, but we will see with time what happens.

Is it not money if I can go to McDonalds and buy burgers with it. And then go to Starbucks and buy a coffee with it? https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/essay-from-el-salvador-b...

I don't get the shock that few own most of the btc. It's awarded in perfect proportion to your means to invest in creating it. Even a small time gold miner in the 1860s could possibly win an outsized reward, given his available resources. That's impossible w btc.

Everything from the bitcoin clock, to the setting, to the dishes, the hair, the nose-ring - and especially the Tweets - is all personal brand posturing.

Brave opinions from a guy whose legacy at Twitter was buying the next big thing and then closing it down. Vine, Periscope, Quill etc etc. Guy is a fucking idiot. Someone tell him to stay out of Africa. We don't want him.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com