This topic is to help track and discuss the developing arguments over decentralisation which are cropping up recently under the labels Web3 (perpetual web cludges, De-Fi, NFTs), DWeb which precedes it and trends to be anti monetisation, and the bitcoin maximalism which regards blockchain as primarily for currency and not much else.
One of the contentious points right now is whether many decentralisation projects are really decentralised because of the power structures and ownership around them, including VCs such as a16z.
Safe Network should come out of this pretty well IMO, because it shows by far the most âpureâ intent (see the fundamentals of Safe Network which have been true for 15 years), least centralised in ownership, control, governance and intention, and fingers crossed the most robust and capable decentralised tech, which is applicable to all the areas people are arguing over.
The following article gives a good overview of the current spat and some of the well known protagonists and their positions whoâve been arguing just recently.
It sounds from the discussions in this forum and the quoted articles that web3 is being hijacked by money (any form) before it even starts.
This is understandable since web2 was monetised and has become a way to extract the most money it can (and valuable personal info) out of the population. And the same mentality is trying to get in from the start of web3.
Yes there are some trying to make it similar to what Safe is. But Safe runs the risk of being seen as another money maker for the rich (with no evidence) if we try to use web3 in marketing of Safe. Because web3 is being seen that way by many influential people, just another money maker.
I agree, and so do many. The question remains whether Safe Network is also subject to these problems, in other peopleâs eyes if not ours, and if not how we make the case.
I think itâs a useful debate to have with skeptics because maybe weâre not doing as well as weâd want, and maybe we still have things to learn and improve (always!). I like to share the Safe Network fundamentals a lot these days because I think theyâre a good way to demonstrate the values and goals we have, and the fact the project (under @dirvineâs stewardship) has been true to them for 15 years. I think thatâs powerful, but am not sure itâs convincing.
For example, tante has written an article critiquing Web3, has since looked at Safe Network, acknowledges differences but is not convinced itâs that different. Are we? If so, how? And how do we demonstrated this? See:
I quickly skimmed the tante article and found it rather cliche. Kudos to him for summarizing a lot of concepts in one place, but thereâs nothing significant there other than the fact that it serves as a good example of how small-minded the general blockchain community is. His closing remarks are ridiculous. I also found his multiple âlisten to me Iâm an expert social justice warrior that has programmed a computerâ caveats rather annoying.
Regardless, the web3 monicker will overtake Safe marketing imo. There are a lot of challenges with web X.0 because they all mean different things to different people. Its easy to agree on web1.0 and web2.0, but after that the definitions are murky and malleable.
Really, we should just sidestep the whole thing and focus on dirvineâs original âautonomous networkâ wording. I also think that âworld computer 1.0â is a real winner.
I agree we canât own or control the definition of Web3 but thatâs not an argument for positioning Safe Network without reference to it or DWeb and other relevant topics or communities. We can also learn from the critiques of them and from them about Safe Network - and I invited tante here in the hope heâd explain some more about the specific points he mentioned about Safe Network.
I also agree we can use other terms such as âautonomous networkâ, âworld computerâ etc where appropriate. For example, I use âperpetual webâ in discussions related to DWeb and Web3, and when we have this working again pointing people to videos of this (like the ones Jim did a while ago) will blow some minds.
Prior to the web3 marketing blitz that occurred recently, I used to describe safe as web 3.0 to some folks. Now Iâm not so sure if I will continue to do so. Maybe web 3.1??
They say that history is written by the victors. It doesnât really matter what people claim web3 is. What matters is what it becomes.
Indeed many people want to position their products as the thing people should buy next. It is a marketing trick to steer people towards them. These folks are spending a lot of time and effort to highlight a centralised problem, so they can claim their decentralised solution fixes it.
We shouldnât fear this too much though. Fortunately for safe network, it can also be pushed as a solution too. In terms of marketing, half the battle is making people believe there is a problem that needs a solution in the first place. We can certainly benefit from that.
I have found all of the posts here really interesting, an eye opener. I do just wonder though - is it a mistake to not even be a voice in the web3 conversation right now, if a stable network is within reach. Even if its to say add to the web3 counter argument?
