An example of a real value proposition of web 3.0 is spam protection and reduction of fake reviews. Much like how bitcoin itself cannot be counterfeited, utilization of the blockchain enables some guarantees in a digital world of endless copying.
The only thing I got from it was that the creator hates crypto bros so much he's willing to spend hours on end making an app to demonstrate why he's right.
How? It just costs money now.
Entities that want to spam and fake reviews, usually have money.
In fact, the more money someone is willing to throw at it, the more reviews they get to post. In fact, with enough resources, genuine reviews (which I would be reluctant to give as a user, as they cost additional money) can be comlpetely drowned out in this scenario.
There is no inherent fake news protection, just like pointers don’t validate the underlying data.
Would someone who has a monetary incentive to comment pay to do so?
We already have a solution to this problem: It's the internet as it is right now.
Is the opinion of some tech bro in the Bay Area making six figures really worth a hundred times as much? Do they have a hundred times as much to say or are they a hundred times as insightful?
Or maybe, just maybe, tying all participation to a monetary transaction is an incredibly classist thing to do that will shut out vast portions of the world so the rich and privileged can feel "free".
What users do when seeing comments from accounts that have lower signals of quality is up to the user to decide. If they would rather listen to voices from unverified accounts over ones that have higher signals that's for them to ultimately choose. No one will be required to necessarily lock up capital to comment, and no one will be required to only look at comments from those who locked up capital.
This is just an example I thought up of on the spot, but I believe there are people who actually did a much deeper dive into these concepts.
To be fair, hating crypto bros is a really good way of life. Mostly because crypto bros have never once in their life been right.
Web 3.0 and web3 are very different ideas.
I followed O'Reilly's Web 2.0 with great interest as a user of Flickr and Delicio.us, read about but didn't really get the whole Web 3.0 semantic web stuff, later learned how to program and much later still, learned about web3. If anything, it's my former language teacher side leading me to be irked by the Web 3.0 / web3 confusion.
Honestly, your comment is needlessly hostile and offensive.
We're exactly at that period with web3: haters gonna hate and early adopters will be rewarded.
Yet I still think benefits and the potential impact (which is not theoretical, just needing a bit more mass adoption to take off) greatly outweigh the negative sides.
Just because Blorkchains can solve a given problem, doesn't mean it's the best, or only solution. One could design a notetaking app using remote controlled combine-harvesters that mow the notes into prepared fields of wheat serving as storage media, and camera drones to read the information back. Doesn't mean it makes sense to do so.
On the other hand, I still believe my example about freedom is still a perfect use case of it and I don't know other ways of doing it.
How exactly does the blorkchain or "web3" achive that? There still needs to be a host for the webapps through which it's accessed. There still need to be DNS entries. The people acessing it are still doing so via ISPs. All these are gatekeepers, which an authoritarian regime has control over.
Gatekeepers don't go away just because the service decides to use a distributed ledger.
Oh BTW if you want people to take your comments more seriously you can stop deliberately misspelling names of technologies.
This is a thought terminating idea, as much as I like TS. There is a good reason why people dislike it. Maybe consider understanding their points
Criticizing is okay, there's a lot to criticize about crypto. But I see a rush of hatestorm on crypto everyday here on HN which I frankly think pointless.