Web 3.0 is people not born when the dot com bubble exploded trying to sell it to people who missed out the first time, apparently.<p>But it certainly has companies dabbling in it.
Here we go again, another one who can't ignore the inevitable failure of web3.<p>> The blockchain is not necessarily anonymous. Especially when you start attaching real-world metadata into each of the tokens.<p>Unless you are using Signal and MobileCoin, Monero, etc which all the fraudsters, criminals and terrorists are using, what part of web3 ever claimed that it was anonymous? It's more pseudonymous than anything else.<p>> Every blockchain to this date has not addressed a thing it was set out to do.<p>I don't think the author knows what they are talking about with this point.
This article is unspecific in its accusations and metaphors. Wouldn't recommend wasting your time with it. Why was it written, why was it posted here. There's nothing in the article to really discuss and so this thread is just gonna be boring.<p>Here's a repository of well written web3 critiques: <a href="https://github.com/rufuspollock/awesome-crypto-critique" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/rufuspollock/awesome-crypto-critique</a><p>Disclosure: own crypto
The state of web2 in 2005: <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Million_Dollar_Homepage" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Million_Dollar_Homepage</a>
Everyone is racing to find an answer to what actually is "web 3.0" with no actual innovation other than plain hype. take a look at this site that puts a more reasonable to what web 3.0 should include.