However, the debate is important, the pushback is healthy, and ultimately web3 will have to deliver on its promise which means teams building things that provide new unique value to society. If that doesn’t happen, then web3 will turn out to be the snake oil that some are suggesting it is. I am confident that won’t happen, but it is important to understand that the proof is in the pudding and talk is cheap.
It all comes down to the database that sits behind an application. If that database is controlled by a single entity (think company, think big tech), then enormous market power accrues to the owner/administrator of that database.
I have been reading up on Metaverse as an “alternate” “reality” – I won’t get into the specifics, but there’s a significant war of narratives with VC’s sparring it out on Twitter or through their own media channels. The hype and hoopla around “decentralisation” will possibly gather a feverish pitch later this year, but it doesn’t augur well. The liquidity in market is being deployed to place “bets”, which can otherwise be better used (say manufacturing or handling civic issues).
We need to understand blockchains (I stay away from “cryptos”) but the blockchains serve as public ledgers. I am aware of its potential in EHR’s – I’d try to explore that option in a future post. However, these are making rapid inroads in the healthcare. Data portability will gather a feverish pitch, while blockchains will serve as a “public record”. It shouldn’t be so- instead we require common standards for data portability.
RadOncNotes 