[douglaswlance]

>The real single reason for which I believe that all this will come tumbling down is cause of the fact that all this is falsely hyped as being something better than its predecessors but in reality it is not.

How so? If you're saying that this is the one single reason, then you have to support it with evidence.

[PragmaticPulp]

> How so? If you're saying that this is the one single reason, then you have to support it with evidence.

This feels like asking someone to prove a negative by providing singular examples.

I’m still looking for an example of a web3 product that is more usable, more beneficial, and more attractive than the centralized equivalent. So far the only real benefits appear to be decentralized censorship resistance and, arguably, the unnecessary tokenization that allows early adopters to get wealthy based on speculation of future functionality.

[wpietri]

They really don't. Not every document has to include all things relevant back to the big bang. That bit in particular has been discussed by lots of people for quite a while, including a ton of posts right here, so if you just fell off the turnip truck and are truly unaware of the web3 critiques, a little searching should set you straight. Heck, I'll even give you a place to start: https://web3isgoinggreat.com/

[rvz]

> Heck, I'll even give you a place to start: https://web3isgoinggreat.com/

Yeah, 'Days since a car did not crash into another car. hence why all cars are dangerous and will never take off over horse and carriages'. - Car skeptic.

By now there should have been a worldwide 100% complete total ban on crypto a long time ago, just like the usage of Tor. Why didn't this happen? It's simply due to the fact that it is close to impossible to ban all of it. Regulators and crypto skeptics already know this, and instead both crypto supporters and skeptics will compromise and enforce regulations on cryptocurrencies, exchanges, etc.

Hence, only some cryptocurrencies, exchanges will survive past regulations and will continue to be widely used. I'm afraid crypto is here to stay like it or not.

[wpietri]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not interested in arguing the point. I'm just saying that the point has been argued aplenty, anybody insisting that someone must spoon-feed them the arguments right now is not asking for something reasonable. Instead, they come across like somebody looking to argue. And we all know how tiresome that can be.

[douglaswlance]

Did the failure of Enron mean that the US financial system itself is a scam?

If not, then why should a scam on a blockchain be evidence that that blockchain itself is a scam?

[ceejayoz]

Enron was followed by regulation reworking the system to prevent it from happening again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

There's little indication the crypto ecosystem is inclined to do the same. See, for example, Tether's continued core role despite years of lying about audits and getting caught cooking the books for their attestations.

[lottin]

Enron wasn't a bank or a financial corporation.

[clpm4j]

It's slower and more expensive.

[spaceman_2020]

That's not a good enough critique of a new tech. Applicable once it has reached maturity, but Ethereum and EVM smart contracts are relatively very new. If they're still slow and expensive in 2025, Web3 will rightly deserve to be forgotten and abandoned.

[galdosdi]

Crypto's been around for over a decade dude. How many decades do you want?

Why would I ever build a business around an Ethereum smart contract when I could just write a normal contract, and then I know the courts will enforce it even if one of my business associates tries to pull a fast one?

If it's about the precise coding of constraints and all that, you can easily write a legal contract that specifies that the piece of code should be followed. Ask wall street derivatives traders if they have any issues with making paper legal contracts arbitrarily mathematically complex. It works fine for them.

[spaceman_2020]

Crypto has been around for decades but most of the tech we now call "Web3" is very nascent. The ERC-721 standard used by most NFTs was first proposed in 2018, and didn't even reach technical maturity until 2019.

And yes, you can write normal contracts and get the courts to enforce it. But what if your customers are in India or Vietnam or Tibet? Under which jurisdiction will you attempt to enforce the contract?

The entire critique rests on the thesis that the world will always be the way it is - dominated by a handful of western (mostly American) corporations who will get to dictate what billions of people in the rest of the world consume, create, and share.

The reality is that the non-western part of the internet is already larger, will grow even larger, and it needs tools and products that are built for its scale and diversity. Whether that's Web3 or Web2 or Web2500, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that more and more countries will seek to yank back control from western corporations (like India making its own national mobile app store).

I, for one, will cheer on anything that challenges the FAANG oligopoly.

[lottin]

A so-called 'smart contract' is not a replacement for a contract. Just because you call something a contract doesn't mean it is. The same applies to 'decentralised finance'. It's not finance unless it can do financing, and defi can't.

[spaceman_2020]

my dude, do you always evaluate things for what they are rather than what they could be?