Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zaskoda | Hacker News Reader

IMO, pay with money. End of story. Expecting services for free got is into this horrible advertising model that turned us into the product rather than customers. There are people promoting gasless, free to use chains. That model is flawed. Financial incentives is what finally made decentralized networks a real thing. For a good explanation as to where we're going with this, read "Who Owns The Future."

View on HN

Excluding people without money sounds like the opposite direction the internet should be headed :(

You're forgetting about the part where the same system can provide those people with an income. Excluding people from the global financial system, imo, is the opposite of where we should be headed. The notion of paying people for their contribution to the network, no matter how small, is discussed in "Who Owns The Future"

How do you make money on web3 without the upfront loading of cash into a crypto wallet?

In the existing state of things, you can get involved in a community that "air drops" a token, you can run a network node, you can play a P2E game, or you can sell NFTs that don't mint until sold. But this is super early. "Who Owns The Future" describes a model of revenue sharing that will require extremely cheap micro transactions.

This is where all blows up. Where there is absolutely no free tier. That won't be digested outside the crypto community.

I see web3 / crypto is a playground for few, with their rules / utopia, but let's just call it crypto, not web3. Web3 should be universal and free, as its predecessors.

It sounds to me like what you are suggesting would be taking the awful inequality we're already suffering and would transpose it to the web. Why would we want that?

You can't provide services for free without exploiting people. I recommend reading "Who Owns The Future" for a for discussion on inclusion.

Doesn't need to be free. Could be public and tax-funded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com