I was an early bitcoin adopter (if I still had my coins I’d have no mortgage and then some) and I’m technical enough to understand public key cryptography and the principles behind the blockchain. I’ve slowly come around to this author’s point of view. The environmental issues are real, but after all this time I haven’t heard a comprehensible blockchain pitch. Literally none of it makes sense to me. Of course it’s possible I don’t understand something or simply haven’t encountered a compelling explanation. Based on what I know now though, I think it’s the blockchain hype that won’t age well.
This article...will not age well.
It's looking at a snapshot of today's broken, MVP-stage blockchain and making generalized statements about the future.
As much of our world has become digitally-relevant, we've seen a need to make digital-native representations of the world, and currency is merely one of them.
The internet is fundamentally decentralized, but the applications built on it undermine that philosophy (they are centralized). Blockchain - and web3 - is a gambit towards returning the internet to its original DNA.
I know we're as a stratified species, may have some reluctance about the notion of anarchy, and I'm not even sold on absolute anarchy, but there are aspects of our lives that could do with decentralizing trust.
Perhaps, instead of thinking about what the blockchain looks like today, if we asked ourselves 'what would things look like if we didn't need so many middlemen in the chain', we might find specific instances where Blockchain anc Blockchain-like technology is an improvement on the status quo.
I'm totally with you in regards to this article not aging well.
Take this article with a grain of salt.
The Blockchain/Cryptocurrencies will enable an age of ownership in which we have never seen before online. From minting NFTS to easily splitting revenues on creative projects like a song.
I'm all for Web3.
Here's a piece I wrote on that exact topic.