[demux]

This comment adds no insight on the posted content and makes claims that simply aren't true. To elaborate: 1. To assert "web3 doesn't care about X" implies that there is a coordinated effort to not care about X by web3 which is false by definition. Even if it's commentary on the apparent centralization of web3 being supposed to be p2p, there are several different web3 providers (eth, poly, ipfs) with different incentives. They're not all bad. 2. There are rug pulls and pump-dumps all over the place. This is a consequence of the decentralized nature of crypto and just a pessimistic example of what's possible with web3 tech. There are several optimistic solutions that solve real world problems using web3 which have been deployed IRL.

This comment only adds a poorly informed opinion to this discussion, while not being very relevant.

[scollet]

> there is a coordinated effort to not care about X by web3 which is false by definition.

> the apparent centralization of web3 being supposed to be p2p, there are several different web3 providers (eth, poly, ipfs) with different incentives.

> a pessimistic example of what's possible with web3 tech.

I want to engage on these points in good faith. I'm asking you to expand these because I'm curious.

I think crypto economics are a blight in practice, while the theory might be sound.

You've presented a head and no body work, and I am genuinely curious to hear the expansion.

[derangedHorse]

Asking to “expand” is a little too general, do you have any specific questions about any of the topics listed?

[f6v]

Aren’t you doing the same?

> which is false by definition

I mean, why?