Web3 needs its Richard Feynman(s)

An extension on Max Chafkin's Web3 thoughts

Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman

“You Can Give People What They Want. Or You Can Give Them Web3.”, wrote Max Chafkin of Bloomberg in June. While I don’t agree with every one of his sentences, many of his overarching points are powerful and valid. Please spare five minutes reading his piece here.

Max cites this conversation between economist Tyler Cowen and VC-giant Marc Andreesen.

Tyler: “So what is the concrete advantage of Web3.0 for podcasts?”

Marc: “Look, it’s injecting economics… It’s injecting, at a very fundamental level, internet-native money, internet-native economics, and incentives into a system that simply hasn’t had that.”

Max has no clue what internet native economics means, and though I have my guesses, I’m not too sure either. This forms the crux of his article: what the heck is Web3 trying to improve?!

And this, of course, throw at us a couple more questions; some of which are:

• Is Web3 shoving financialization down our throats?

Right now, tokens are the general means towards running Web3 protocols. Max brings up Axie Infinity, a Web3 gaming protocol. One of Axie Infinity’s core propositions is that users can decide the future of the game (e.g. rules and abilities of characters) by owning and voting using game-native tokens.

But which normal person, who’s enters gaming for raw fun, would want to care about “complicated financial transaction” or “nuanced risk/reward calculus”?Extending that skepticism, can’t players decide a game’s future, too? Plenty of game companies listen to their fans.

• Is Web3 an obvious speculative bubble—and will it ever stop being one?

Tokens are being inserted into and increasing number of products. And tokens, by being tradable and investable, risk being used more for money-making than their intended protocol-based purposes. Consider governance tokens being used more for trading than voting. That doesn’t look like the next future of the internet.

(Thankfully, a more mature discussion on token-design is taking off. Good read on that topic here.)

• Is decentralization useful in every situation?

This is a classic Bitcoiner argument against crypto that’s non-Bitcoin. Decentralization is more important for certain things and a lot less important for others. I think that most folks in crypto would agree that decentralization can be useful when it comes to money. But is decentralizing a game as vital as decentralizing money?

Tyler Cowen and Marc Andreesen ;Photos from Mercatus Center & Yahoo News respectively

But let’s go back to the basics; by trying to answer a simple question similar to what Tyler posed to Marc:

What is the concrete advantage of Web3 for video sharing?

I.e. Are decentralized video-sharing platforms—think Youtube, but run by thousands of independent computers all around the world, instead of by a single corporation—of any value to users? Could a Web3 Youtube mitigate any of current Youtube’s problems?

Let’s take a look at some of these problems first. One problem that consumers face is long ads. This has gotten especially worse in the past few years, largely because Youtube doesn’t face any real competition.

A problem that creators face is inflexible monetization models. Youtube, the middle-man between the creator and consumer, takes almost half of the advertising revenue. Ideally, there should be other video-sharing platforms competing with Youtube to drive middle-man revenue down. But this isn’t the case because, again, Youtube doesn’t face any real competition.

In contrast, a Web3 Youtube would open source. Anyone could wire some code, build some bridges, and transfer years of content over to a newly created Web3 video sharing platform. You’d see multiple Web3 Youtubes popping up in different blockchains, all with the same videos and long ads. And then one by one, they’d start competing with one another, for example, by shortening ad durations.

In the Web3 video sharing space, you’d see fierce competition. The type of competition that we wish could’ve existed between Youtube and Vimeo. Or Spotify and Apple Music.

Web3 could be a competition stirrer. Web3 could be a monopoly-killer. Web3 could implode creativity at every level.

Naval @naval

If the work doesn’t require creativity, delegate it, automate it, or leave it.

So yes—in theory, if done right—Web3 does have concrete pro-consumer and pro-creator propositions for video sharing. But to recognize those propositions, one needs to hear Web3 framed the right way.

At the moment, when someone hears “Web3”, what comes to mind isn’t shorter ads on the videos we watch everyday. It’s a lot closer to the two minute Rockwell Retro Encabulator ad below.

Allow me to cite one last rudimentary example. Max excellently points out that “Web3” is the “new label for services built around a blockchain”. He’s right.

But “blockchain” should not be the bumper sticker that Web3 sticks on itself. The bumper sticker should be “decentralization” or “competition”! Blockchains, after all, don’t even necessarily imply decentralization. They’re just a means; databases that are crafted in a specific way.

Again: current framing is dominated by convoluted terminology, which often misses the core point.

Photo from the MIT Alumni Association

When Marc Andreesen talked about injecting internet-native economics into every level, I believe that he was trying to convey that Web3 could make things more meritocratic and competitive; the hallmarks of a free-market economy. And at that moment, had Marc channelled his inner Richard Feynman—the fierce advocacy for teaching and framing ideas in simple and exciting ways—I believe that Max’s article might’ve been very different.

However, the lack of Richard Feynmans isn’t only due to the struggle to explain things simply. Explaining things simply also means being honest, and much of the industry isn’t yet willing to do that.

For example, framing things simply entails Ethereum folks being more open about Ethereum’s centralization issues; It entails Ethereum developers coming out and talking about building multi-chain infrastructure. Framing things simply also means VCs openly expressing doubt towards GameFi; asking actual gamers whether they feel like their voices aren’t being heard by traditional Web2 gaming companies. And of course, framing things simply also entails galaxy-brained developers who’ve worked on tokenomics for their entire life coming out and openly wondering whether the doom-loop is a very genuine problem for proof-of-stake protocols.

Indeed, open admissions of centralization may cause certain ventures to collapse in the short-run. But the initial vision behind crypto was about long-term prosperity over short-term dopamine boosts. Being honest and simple aids any long-term vision. And once more folks understand Web3’s core ideas, we’'ll find ourselves in a cultural revolution that’s unstoppable.

So the next time you’re explaining Web3 to a friend, family member, or stranger, don’t talk about blockchains or ledgers or consensus mechanisms. Talk about shorter Youtube ads and more engineers becoming podcasters like Lex Fridman.

It’ll change the Web3 conversation entirely.

You can find me on Twitter @ramwithouthorns!