I’ve seen the recent discussion in Social Media about the Web 3.0 use cases, or lack thereof, and wanted to throw in my opinion.

I think trying to back Web 3 proponents into a corner, and com eup with all the use cases now is a senseless endeavor. Not only is there no ability to do this now, but there is no reason to even try.

For some context, let’s look at the growth of the Internet, Web 2, Social Media, etc.

When the Internet started, it was only for academics and researchers. Eventually we had email, communities, reproductions of newspapers, and booksellers. Many had similar thoughts around the Internet and its growth as they have about Web 3. It was partly a lack of vision, and partly of the feeling that we don’t “need” the new technology.

The lack of vision comes from an inability to picture a world different that our current life. As slow as the early Internet was, it was difficult to picture a time when I would have the ability to interact immediately with anyone in the world, send pictures, and even order a car, all from the palm of my hand.

So now we have the same issue with lack of vision with regard to Web 3. We’re looking or use cases based on recent history of crypto, and current technological, financial, and government systems.

There is also this feeling that we don’t “need” crypto. Usually this centers around pure crypto tokens, and their potential use case as a currency. There is less of a need for crypto, in this sense, in the Western world, where we have a good banking system, and options for electronic payments.

This idea of need is also a very narrow view of crypto, with blinders on the investment or currency aspects in the west. What we have to understand is that: There is a need for a new financial and currency system elsewhere in the world, and whether we feel we need it or not does NOT matter. We also didn’t need social media, Uber, etc., but here we are. Technology tends to march forward because it can.

So now we can put these ideas together. We can look at the technology, determine if there is the potential for more adoption, and then determine if we think there might be use cases down the road.

The technology centers around decentralization. Basically, transactions and code can be hosted and run without the need for a centralized entity to process. Those that are processing the transactions are rewarded with tokens. This is how Bitcoin and Ethereum operate. The processors can’t be rewarded with dollars, because then we go back to the same centralized banking and government systems.

Back in 2008, the great recession started after banks, insurance companies, and ratings agencies - all centralized entities - decided to trade assets without any approval or transparency from those of us that made the global economy work.

Several national governments - also centralized entities - have decided their solutions to their own problems involved printing money and/or limiting bank access to funds.

Many of hte Web2 companies we use every day decided they would make extra money by selling our data, and not sharing that money with us.

So back to my question…do we need a new system? If we want to be able to exercise more sovereignty and control of our own data, including our money and financial data, yes, we require a new system. By “we” I am referring to people on this planet, not just privileged westerners. While adoption might not be as swift in areas where we have more trust in our government and banking systems, the rest of the world, which really needs this new technology, will be faster to start using.

Once adoption scales up, we start to see more use cases. When more companies worldwide are accepting crypto payments, they will already be on-chain. They can decide to convert to fiat and utilize the current banking system, or they can see the value in having more control of their assets on-chain, and find, or demand the new use cases.

They already have access to investing in crypto assets. They also have access to lending and borrowing, as well as other forms of yield generation. Eventually their use of the new system, as well as their data, will lead to development of more apps.

Many of the current Web3 use cases are just copies of those available in Web2 and TradFi. However, the really novel use cases will come from questions like “I know I can do X with my digital assets, but what if I could do Y?”

I know I can use my phone to look up a number and call a cab, but what if I could have an app that requests someone drive me around in a car that would otherwise be idle, and with time they weren’t using to be productive?

We are currently trying to superimpose Web2 and TradFi. In this way, the use cases translate, but the need isn’t really there. Adoption leads to increased use, to increased questions, to increased development, to more use cases that fit both the technology and the lives of those utilizing it.

I’ve seen the recent discussion in Social Media about the Web 3.0 use cases, or lack thereof, and wanted to throw in my opinion.

I think trying to back Web 3 proponents into a corner, and com eup with all the use cases now is a senseless endeavor. Not only is there no ability to do this now, but there is no reason to even try.

For some context, let’s look at the growth of the Internet, Web 2, Social Media, etc.

When the Internet started, it was only for academics and researchers. Eventually we had email, communities, reproductions of newspapers, and booksellers. Many had similar thoughts around the Internet and its growth as they have about Web 3. It was partly a lack of vision, and partly of the feeling that we don’t “need” the new technology.

The lack of vision comes from an inability to picture a world different that our current life. As slow as the early Internet was, it was difficult to picture a time when I would have the ability to interact immediately with anyone in the world, send pictures, and even order a car, all from the palm of my hand.

So now we have the same issue with lack of vision with regard to Web 3. We’re looking or use cases based on recent history of crypto, and current technological, financial, and government systems.

There is also this feeling that we don’t “need” crypto. Usually this centers around pure crypto tokens, and their potential use case as a currency. There is less of a need for crypto, in this sense, in the Western world, where we have a good banking system, and options for electronic payments.

This idea of need is also a very narrow view of crypto, with blinders on the investment or currency aspects in the west. What we have to understand is that: There is a need for a new financial and currency system elsewhere in the world, and whether we feel we need it or not does NOT matter. We also didn’t need social media, Uber, etc., but here we are. Technology tends to march forward because it can.

So now we can put these ideas together. We can look at the technology, determine if there is the potential for more adoption, and then determine if we think there might be use cases down the road.

The technology centers around decentralization. Basically, transactions and code can be hosted and run without the need for a centralized entity to process. Those that are processing the transactions are rewarded with tokens. This is how Bitcoin and Ethereum operate. The processors can’t be rewarded with dollars, because then we go back to the same centralized banking and government systems.

Back in 2008, the great recession started after banks, insurance companies, and ratings agencies - all centralized entities - decided to trade assets without any approval or transparency from those of us that made the global economy work.

Several national governments - also centralized entities - have decided their solutions to their own problems involved printing money and/or limiting bank access to funds.

Many of hte Web2 companies we use every day decided they would make extra money by selling our data, and not sharing that money with us.

So back to my question…do we need a new system? If we want to be able to exercise more sovereignty and control of our own data, including our money and financial data, yes, we require a new system. By “we” I am referring to people on this planet, not just privileged westerners. While adoption might not be as swift in areas where we have more trust in our government and banking systems, the rest of the world, which really needs this new technology, will be faster to start using.

Once adoption scales up, we start to see more use cases. When more companies worldwide are accepting crypto payments, they will already be on-chain. They can decide to convert to fiat and utilize the current banking system, or they can see the value in having more control of their assets on-chain, and find, or demand the new use cases.

They already have access to investing in crypto assets. They also have access to lending and borrowing, as well as other forms of yield generation. Eventually their use of the new system, as well as their data, will lead to development of more apps.

Many of the current Web3 use cases are just copies of those available in Web2 and TradFi. However, the really novel use cases will come from questions like “I know I can do X with my digital assets, but what if I could do Y?”

I know I can use my phone to look up a number and call a cab, but what if I could have an app that requests someone drive me around in a car that would otherwise be idle, and with time they weren’t using to be productive?

We are currently trying to superimpose Web2 and TradFi. In this way, the use cases translate, but the need isn’t really there. Adoption leads to increased use, to increased questions, to increased development, to more use cases that fit both the technology and the lives of those utilizing it.