Hacker News Reader

Comment by bgitarts | Hacker News Reader

Endgame is decentralizing the internet and perhaps non-internet protocols. Even if the probability of a decentralized social network working is small, the upside in the case it does work is so large that it's worth the bet

ie: 100% downside vs 10,000%+ upside. If only 1 out of 100 such bets works out they break even. If 2 they have a profitable fund, 3+ they have knocked it out of the park.

View on HN

I don't believe the VCs have such lofty or noble goals as decentralising the internet. If it were possible I believe they'd want to corner the emerging market as it grows.

But I think you're right that the upside is so attractive given how little they need to invest to realise significant gains.

>Endgame is decentralizing the internet and perhaps non-internet protocols.

The internet was always decentralized. That's literally the entire point of TCP/IP. The web, however, is indeed being centralized; and crypto is at the forefront of that. For all the talk of "democratizing finance", the reality is that all of these web3 proponents have no interest in anything beyond enriching themselves by reinventing the existing centralized banking system minus all that pesky regulation.

Internet protocols are all decentralized. We tried, users do not want to be an agent in a distributed system. They want to watch TikTok on their phone, not setup a home server or a wallet for decentralized finance ideas. Coinbase and similar firms success is proof that people do not want decentralized anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com