Web3 isn't about cryptocurrency, it's about owning your own identity instead of Google, Apple, Facebook.
You are free to think that, but most folks' use of the term relates strongly to cryptocurrency.
Most people have no idea what web3 or web 2.0 is. But yes, the common definition is the decentralised web. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3
With close to a zero balance (but not quite zero) to pay transaction fees, you can do peer to peer encrypted messaging without central arbiters.
With close to a zero balance (but not quite zero) to pay transaction fees, you can send vast quantities of stablecoins to the otherside of the world - that said a web3 skeptic may consider stablecoins to be a cryptocurrency (there's arguments either way, they're tokens but not minted via proof of stake) and capitalisation is an issue.
Edit: reply to peoplefromibiza, who made some good points, due to rate limit:
> wallets are a cryptocurrency concept
yes, agreed. But they do a lot more than let you speculate on cryptocurrencies. Right now I'm working on wallet for people who have zero interest in speculating on cryptocurrencies.
> you can do the same thing with a client certificate
yes agreed. You can think of web3 as a better PKI. I do.
you can do the same thing with a client certificate, boom, you are who the cert says you are.
yes, agreed. But they do a lot more than let you speculate on cryptocurrencies. Right now I'm working on wallet for people who have zero interest in speculating on cryptocurrencies.
> you can do the same thing with a client certificate
yes agreed. You can think of web3 as a better PKI. I do.
interesting point.
from a UI perspective, it's kinda true.
could have been their killer app, if the whole ecosystem thought about it, but in the end it's been just a byproduct of something that proved zero usefulness and even the "better PKI" argument it's been somewhat replicated by letsencrypt for HTTPS and it will for everything else when a sufficient number of users will show interest for it.