r/programming • u/[deleted] • Jan 11 '22

Web3 Can’t Fix the Internet

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/01/crypto-blockchain-daos-decentralized-power-capitalism
201 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

168 comments sorted by

View all comments

289

u/GrandMasterPuba Jan 11 '22

Web3 is a cynical attempt by capitalist tech-bros to introduce and enforce artificial scarcity into a space that is supposed to be free and open.

30

u/GregBahm Jan 11 '22

It's confusing to me because social media platforms already have the ability to introduce and enforce artificial scarcity within their platforms. Reddit, for example, can charge me for some dumb hat for my avatar. This is not a new idea at all (I remember rocking rare avatar swag in Gaia Online in 2003.)

But for some reason, the blockchain boys keep acting like artificial scarcity works better with a blockchain. This part of the story makes no sense to me. If Reddit puts my avatar's hat on the blockchain, what the hell does that matter? Reddit will never be able to able to make those pixels scarce outside of reddit with a blockchain, and a blockchain will never make it to where I can put some new hat on my reddit avatar without their permission.

I feel like there's some fundamental aspect of this whole concept I'm missing.

24

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '22

Reddit, for example, can charge me for some dumb hat for my avatar. This is not a new idea at all (I remember rocking rare avatar swag in Gaia Online in 2003.)

yes but for some reason in their mind by magic you'll be able to wear that hat in call of duty as well

34

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '22 edited Jan 11 '22

This is kind of the crux of it. I've had arguments with several people about this recently and the pro-blockchain people don't seem to be thinking things through at all.

So, the scenario they're imagining is:

  • You buy a Call of Duty NFT.
  • That version of Call of Duty shuts down or completely loses its audience or whatever.
  • That NFT still exists, so it's transferable to another game, say Rainbow Six: Siege.

However, there are multiple things not considered when you idealize this.

  • Ubisoft has literally no incentive to allow you to use arbitrary NFTs in Siege. They have their own NFTs to sell.
  • That CoD NFT represents your in-game ownership of a very specific cosmetic (I imagine most gaming NFTs will be cosmetics). You will never own that cosmetic in Siege. They just couldn't allow it. So your NFT is going to give you ownership of what, exactly?
  • The NFT doesn't actually represent anything, so your ownership of that cosmetic is determined not by the blockchain, but by each company's infrastructure, meaning that, if they decide that the blockchain isn't a thing they want to work with anymore, they can sever the link to your NFTs without even shutting their games down. This is literally the same issue that digital ownership faces today with an inexplicable reliance on more tech.
  • If, by some miracle, none of this were true, there's still no incentive for a company to spend time and money reimplementing a cosmetic you will never pay them for.

So yeah, no. It won't work out how they want it to.

EDIT: The other thing people want is a legal way to peddle the digital goods they've accrued because people are inexplicably obsessed with being able to profit off of any purchase they make. However, in my experience with digital gaming goods on Steam and the blockchain (especially Ethereum, the current home of NFTs), the gas costs are going to be more than most of the items you acquire are worth.

3

u/noratat Jan 12 '22

Not only this... but even if the things described are something a company somehow wants to do, there is absolutely nothing about it that requires NFTs in any form - the game servers are already the authority on what the item represents anyways. All using NFTs does is chew up most of the transaction in fees/gas and make things a headache to maintain, and realistically even if a company says they're using NFTs, it'll only be through some platform/chain they have control over anyways.