10 simplifications from Web 3.0 that led to deplorable consequences

10 simplifications from Web 3.0 that led to deplorable consequences

Blockchain – not database, although in a broad sense the database can be called both a paper catalog and blockchain itself. Blockchain is the first tool of automatic transfer of values ​​in an unredited environment without the participation of a centralized subject-intermediary.

Therefore, the primary blockchain function is not a record of something and somewhere (although it is: just extremely expensive due to duplication and not primary at all), namely, the creation of such a system of accounting, which allows you to transmit “voiced” coins to any distance.

Due to the wrong approach, you and millions of people read articles about which blockchain is slow, unpretentious, poorly scalable, etc.D. Although all this applies to the consequence of his work, not the reason. If someone has a person’s hair poorly (and he does not want to paint them)-this does not mean that he is a bad person. Just this function is not primary for him. And not even secondary, maybe.

Cryptocurrencies are not an achievement, but the blockchain ..

This myth (like the next) is a derivative of the previous. Perhaps only a genius like with. Wozniak realized that everything is just the opposite: if there are no cryptocurrencies in the blockchain, then this is no longer a blockchain, but a certain database is no longer. There may even be decentralized and/or distributed, but closed and/or centralized in most cases (nevertheless).

The fact that value is transferred without the participation of an intermediary just means that a certain conditional asset is needed, which will display this value inside the network. This is, for example, BTC. In addition, it was this coin that allows you to make sure that the level of spam on the network reaches the critical and curls itself, and the network continues to work.

There are few blockchain and where needed

This myth has been over 8 years and he is alive, because many misunderstood p. 1 and p. 2, more precisely – they believe in these myths. In fact, the blockchain develops in a spiral:

  1. ICO began to collect ICOs;
  2. ICO created the infrastructure of Defi;
  3. Defi gave impetus to new forms of NFT and games;
  4. Games gave rise to the idea of ​​Move-2-Earn;
  5. And t.D.

All this eventually led to hundreds of millions of users, billions of transactions and trillions (c) capitalization. But it is easier for people to believe in a myth.

Cryptocurrencies are not anonymous

And this myth – One of the guns of attacks of states on Web 3.0: on the one hand, we are convinced of not anonymity, on the other, that “bitcoin is money for money” (although this is not so: read my blog on Hub.FORKLOG with analysis).

As a result, people do not use the mechanisms of anonymity in Zcash, say, as widely as possible, and neglect the safety rules, sending funds to the exchange (CEX). And yet, I assure you that anonymity, as openness and decentralization are the basic principles of Web 3.0, and therefore:

  1. Use anonymous cryptocurrencies;
  2. Use anonymous Defi products;
  3. Do not forget about the cross -country cross -country;
  4. And so on.

Not simplified thesis sounds like this: cryptocurrencies may not be anonymous if you do not learn how to use their potential.

Mining is not environmentally friendly

Everything has already said about this simplification more than once, but here I will repeat it from the point of view of simplification: if there is something environmentally friendly in the world (windmills or electric cars, say), then mining is calmly included in the top 10 of such systems.

Why then the simplification works? Because the myth of the environmental friendliness of governments and corporations works. But this is a separate and big question.

ICO – bench

Actually, this is a simplification of one order of the previous And it is 100% false, If you look at the development of ecosystems described above: cryptocurrency – ICO – Defi – NFT – GameFi – ETC.

Ethreum, Banor, Brave, Polkadot, Cosmos, Aragon, Tezos, Filecoin, Storj, etc. – All this is ICO and all these are projects that develop the market. Again-false thesis: “More than 80% ICO-bench” does not allow people to enter the industry, But the VC is happy to invest in it: NEAR, SOLANA, AVALANCHE, UNISWAP, OPENSEA and others – all these are venture projects in the crypt.

Simplify? So – they do not go to you, but you are.

Defi – finances for all

Perhaps the most harmful myth, because:

  • Web 3.0 – not for everyone;
  • Blockchain is not for everyone;
  • Decentralized finances – not https://gagarin.news/ for everyone in Cuba.

Defi is an excellent tool for wealthy derivatives, flash-bunks and similar solutions, but they are all complex and therefore with Terra (luna) collapse, Three Arrows Capital and others, it would already be necessary to understand and go for hard, knowing how not only to swim, but also transferring super-cold temperatures and strong currents.

Smart contract is a contract

Myth that follows from all the others. But there is only one answer: no, no and not again! Initially, in general, a contract != contract, and even smart contract-twice. Yes, there are similarities:

  1. Conditions are spelled out;
  2. Sides (can be);
  3. Deadlines (without a period/on the event, the deadline expires/with a term/other);
  4. Other.

But differences too much a lot of:

  1. In the contract, the subject cannot be an object, and in the SAO world an object may (AMM – a simple example);
  2. The smart contract has the property of self-execution;
  3. A smart contract can work as an offer, and as an individual contract immediately (at access levels, say: the wallet is NFT-ERC-20 tokens-SBT);
  4. And t.D.

Simplification of smart contracts to contracts leads to many negative consequences, including:

  1. Legal;
  2. Economic;
  3. Technical;
  4. Social.

But this is not all.

Mass Adopshn above all

Here’s what the article was conceived. I really want to shout: “People, come to your senses, ins the same You behave in the era of digital slavery!”. But people silently follow.

And the problem is on the surface:

  1. The lower the entry threshold, the less safe the system is at a deep level;
  2. The lower the threshold of the entrance, the less likely that someone will begin to do their own;
  3. The lower the entry threshold, the higher the level of control;
  4. The lower the threshold of the entrance, the less decentralization.

The last thesis sounds like a paradox, but it is: to enter anywhere – anyone owes. But Phased! Otherwise, he risks doing harm to himself: fly at an altitude above 8.5 km per minute – normal, but there will be nothing but contemplation, and even then – through a limited porthole to climb Everest with the same height – even for a lot of money we need weeks and months of preparation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *