> what if the neighbors collude and vote that you failed to improve the park despite having done what was specified. The contract could further specify that some neutral third party acts as an arbiter in that case.
If there's anything that shows that Web3.0, smart contracts and so on are a bad solution in search of a non-existent problem, it's this.
The ``problem'' is apparently that we don't trust each other and our institutions. The ``solution'' is to create a protocol for trust-less commitments. The bug is that the protocol ultimately relies on the fact that we trust each other and our institutions.
Can Web. 3.0 remove some friction from the system? Maybe. Enough to revolutionize it? Highly doubt it.
If there's anything that shows that Web3.0, smart contracts and so on are a bad solution in search of a non-existent problem, it's this.
The ``problem'' is apparently that we don't trust each other and our institutions. The ``solution'' is to create a protocol for trust-less commitments. The bug is that the protocol ultimately relies on the fact that we trust each other and our institutions.
Can Web. 3.0 remove some friction from the system? Maybe. Enough to revolutionize it? Highly doubt it.