From the article:
> The problem here is the profit motive: people who are working on web3 generally want to get paid for it, but it's fundamentally harder to extract rent from truly decentralized systems than it is from centralized ones. Because of that, people end up building systems that are centralized at their core, with some aesthetics of decentralization smeared on top, and call it web3.
I remain curious that there are practical applications for blockchain outside digital gold style securities. But web3 feels like a land grab for the mindshare of the future. Trading off the philosophies that got us here, while subverting them with the very things the web fought against (centralisation, pay-to-play and so on).
A big red flag is the level of complexity of web3 compared to say HTTP. I rarely see practitioners of web3 talking with clarity, instead hand waving and double-speak is far more common.
Yes, sometimes the most exciting things are emergent, but it's been over a decade of the blockchain field of dreams and we're still talking in hypotheticals are what it will be good for.
Gall's law seems more prescient than ever:
> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.
At the network layer tcp/ip/http are relatively simple compared to blockchain. At the application layer a web server/cloud is still simpler than a dApp. At the user layer a credit/debit card is still simpler than paying with crypto.
To say nothing of the ecological impacts. You may think web3 is the future, but we cannot ignore the fact that http is greener. Yes, I know proof of stake will make crypto green but I'm not convinced it's possible [0].
[0] https://yanmaani.github.io/proof-of-stake-is-a-scam-and-the-...