Hacker News Reader

Comment by FargaColora | Hacker News Reader

Could you give an example of a successful and useful web3 implementation? Because I look around, and all I see are grifters, scams and pyramid schemes. There must be some examples of something useful and popular that has been built, if it's such a revolutionary technology?

View on HN

Aave is an overcollateralized lending protocol with immutable code and a front end hosted on IPFS. That's fairly (not fully) close to providing a 'code-and-forget', public-goods-like web service. Liquity is an overcollateralized stablecoin that doesn't even have an own front end, but has a parameter in the protocol that front end providers can use to set their rewards. Both have also weathered the recent crashes pretty well.

I don't know what most of those words mean, but I do know that Aave is not being used in any popular sense, beyond people speculating that the price of the token increases. I was hoping someone would provide a link to a "popular and useful" example.

Lending is a financial service and undeniably useful. In fact, chances are high that you've used loans in some form yourself already. Overcollateralized means that the value of the collateral is greater than the loan value, as is common for eg mortgages in 'traditional' finance.

I don't have usage statistics, but they're definitely not insignificant.

>> There must be some examples of something useful and popular that has been built, if it's such a revolutionary technology?

That’s a very high bar. There are lots of fun web2 websites that are useless, fun and used by a few people. Also, useful is highly subjective. For example if you are into NFT’s you might find OpenSea popular and useful. If you are not, then you won’t.

Honestly this is a great point. A lot of these discussions can be summed up as “what is your definition of useful?”

A gamer, a retail investor, and a backend developer (permit the one-dimensional characters) have very different ideas of what is useful/not useful.

Are you honestly arguing that Wikipedia or Google Maps can be reasonably argued to be not useful depending on the user?

Ease off the throttle a bit man, I'm not sure what the hostility is about.

Of course I don't think that, like I said that was a very one-dimensional example. Of course many things work well for many people. But I imagine different professionals have very different idea of what constitutes "useful" on the internet.

I guess I just poorly communicated my point, it's whatever. Not like I'm dying on this hill here.

Oh come on. "Useful" is subjective? Either there exists something that serves a purpose to target groups outside of the crypto world or there is not.

They meant useful in general. Forks are useful in general. A stamp database is only useful to stamp collectors and similar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com