Thanks for the detailed and comprehensive writeup. I think you make some very valid points that help to understand some of the context that he elides.
> everyday I interact with protocols, work and vote in daos- 4 years ago those things were in whitepapers as a possible idea, but now they are reality.
This is a pretty important point. He states that it's not really "early days", but if this is the kind of momentum we're talking about it feels like it is early days still. You don't see this kind of innovation in a stale field.
> I think a lot of his criticism is valid, but it also kinda falls flat on what is being built. It is a surface layer "i'll be a web3 dev for a day" overview and response. So it reads like if i followed a tutorial on neural nets in python then complained that my car still cant be driven by ai. Those of us in the space are well aware of all of this and it is all being worked on, but people unfamiliar read it as some kind of smackdown, which isn't helpful either.
This is the money quote for me. Just because there are issues currently doesn't mean that they won't ever get fixed.
My takeaway is that this subject is a lot more nuanced than his article is claiming, and although he's certainly right in a lot of his criticisms, that doesn't mean Web3 as a whole is doomed to failure.
It also does make me reconsider the movement as a whole. Sure, there are bound to be golddiggers, but that doesn't immediately render the whole concept invalid.
> everyday I interact with protocols, work and vote in daos- 4 years ago those things were in whitepapers as a possible idea, but now they are reality.
This is a pretty important point. He states that it's not really "early days", but if this is the kind of momentum we're talking about it feels like it is early days still. You don't see this kind of innovation in a stale field.
> I think a lot of his criticism is valid, but it also kinda falls flat on what is being built. It is a surface layer "i'll be a web3 dev for a day" overview and response. So it reads like if i followed a tutorial on neural nets in python then complained that my car still cant be driven by ai. Those of us in the space are well aware of all of this and it is all being worked on, but people unfamiliar read it as some kind of smackdown, which isn't helpful either.
This is the money quote for me. Just because there are issues currently doesn't mean that they won't ever get fixed.
My takeaway is that this subject is a lot more nuanced than his article is claiming, and although he's certainly right in a lot of his criticisms, that doesn't mean Web3 as a whole is doomed to failure.
It also does make me reconsider the movement as a whole. Sure, there are bound to be golddiggers, but that doesn't immediately render the whole concept invalid.