I've been very critical of "web3" over on 🐦 recently: twitter.com/ilikebeans.

On @matt@write.as, I wrote about how the #fediverse, if anything, seems like the closest thing we have to a true "web3" (without blockchaining all the things): write.as/matt/what-would-a-rea

The way VCs are using the "web3" term is kind of silly. It's branding that sounds incredible, but basically comes down to "financialize the entire Web." Which sucks.

So now I'm thinking, why don't we just co-opt the term for the fediverse?

I've already been calling some of my things "web3", just to be cheeky. But hey, it sounds cool too, and doesn't come with all the terrible aspects of "web3" that its proponents are pushing now. Could be fun.



@matt web3 is basically being used as a drop-in replacement for “blockchain-based”. It would be better if it was used for “decentralized technology” instead, but there’s too much momentum behind its use for blockchain — I don’t think the fediverse is influential enough to co-opt it beyond folks in the fediverse itself.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t do it anyway.

@mike Very true that it doesn't stand for what we want today. But I think just throwing another definition out there, and backing it up with a "web3" that people can actually experience today, can help. I think it's still early enough for that.

(Also needs to be done in the right place -- where all the web3 people hang out)

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The open source, decentralized social network we deserve. Powered by Mastodon.