The problem I have with articles like these is that my definition of Web3 is quite a bit different. I tend to lump "crypto" more with NFTs, wild speculation, scams, heavily VC backed "decentralized" tokens, etc. But on the other hand, I want social networks not owned by businesses, I want other major utilities also not owned by major companies (I think gmail is used for 8bn addresses). I think the fediverse is nice start, but still not decentralized enough (a single mastadon server admin can kill it anytime they want or change the rules). In my opinion the definition of web3 is:
"Web3 represents a fundamental evolution of the internet built upon blockchain architectures. Moving from centralized control and capitalization to a decentralized network where the capital is distributed between the operators and consumers."
I feel like the definition of Web3 is hijacked by pundits. Probably because it has become yet another buzzword and being so tightly associated with Crypto maybe has it tainted forever?
"Web3 represents a fundamental evolution of the internet built upon blockchain architectures. Moving from centralized control and capitalization to a decentralized network where the capital is distributed between the operators and consumers."
I feel like the definition of Web3 is hijacked by pundits. Probably because it has become yet another buzzword and being so tightly associated with Crypto maybe has it tainted forever?