Web3 investor Packy McCormick can't explain a use case for Web3 [video]

For me, this video pretty much sums up the problem Web3 has: At every interface to the real world, you need a trusted third party.<p>Another example: A smart contract that transfers ownership of your online accounts to someone else in case of - say - death. Sounds reasonable, but who tells the smart contract that the person died? The coroner? If so, you are back to square one trying to solve the trusted third party problem.<p>Ironically for Web3&#x2F;etc. the &quot;(no) trusted third party&quot; is both the selling point and it&#x27;s largest problem.

Two years deep in the web3 hole and after using practically every single protocol, I can&#x27;t think of any &quot;need to have&quot; use cases either.<p>Everything is either completely unnecessary or a &quot;nice to have&quot;. Like, say, trading video game assets. Or digital art. All nice to haves, but nothing that would even remotely warrant the kind of valuations the segment commands.

Yo was more deserving of a million dollars of investment money than web3 is.

You know you’re in the wrong path when investors are tech evangelists instead of techies.

is web3 a way of transferring storage and transfer costs to the user?<p>i guess web3 apps will exist on some blockchain with its own token and fee mechanisms.<p>companies already dump their giant js apps on the client side, wouldnt it be <i>great</i> if further requests could be paid by end user also.

3:08 is a pure gold summary<p>&gt; it doesn&#x27;t work [...] you&#x27;ve just recreated [...]<p>rebuttal:<p>&gt; ...on the blockchain