Web 3.0 integration

I hope this is the last general and pointless web3 discussion. We would like to thank Professor Scott Galloway (@profgaloway) of NYU Stern School of Business (@profgaloway) for filing all the arguments against (pro) Web3 to push and hustle. ~

Web 3.0 sib tham

Last Friday, beloved professor Scott Galloway sent us a short article titled "Web3". Article link: https://www.profgaloway.com/web3/

Should I be afraid to open this sentence? I'm a longtime cryptocurrency holder and I'm not scared because I'm not on your side of what you're going to write.

Now, I don't want it to be "the teacher's dunk because it's not always the case". My friend Jordi Hays, CEO of Party Round, said: “The Galloway bullying is over. From a friend's perspective, they like to agree and they don't want to respond. ~

But then I realized he misquoted me and misrepresented what I was involved in. Then, looking a little further, I noticed a lot of errors and incorrect data. ~

The professor's article is a reflection of the prayers of others for laziness (chewing half-digested food into the mouth), with some inaccuracies, even deliberate or not. Thousands of people read, listen and even pay to learn from it. Usually that's not my problem... but if he forced me into this controversy, let's talk about it.

Welcome to the club chat

When Risk Comes Incredibly: We had a heated argument in high school and college, and in fact, we just started arguing in New York when COVID hit. ~

Just as we do in arguments, in leadership discussions, two groups of pros and cons discuss solutions. The solution would be something like "AGI requires simple rules". Supporters defended the solution and protesters tried to dig a hole in it. ~

The two sides argued back and forth, provoking opposition from each group in an attempt to end the discussion, reiterate their points, and determine why they won.

To win an argument, you need to do a few things. The obvious goal is to find the evidence that works best for you. ~

In your research, you may find evidence that influences your thinking. Keep an eye out for this evidence if you need to defend it, but don't remove it (of course if you're playing college and say, "I know our enemy character is telling you x, y, z...they have wrong , vim, b, c."). An inexperienced professional will bend or cause trouble. ~

The purpose of the conversation is not to find out the truth, but to win. That's 101 types of conversations.

Then there is something better. Don't fight, start a new fight. ~

An experienced expert will spend a lot of time defining the theme. An example would be the general AI discussion of what intelligence is usually. ~

This concept can be broadly defined as AI "a human-like intelligence and instinct, and not knowing the difference between a human being and its origin". ~

They will often come back and say that the content is incorrect, and experts agree that "artificial intelligence is the virtual ability of intellectuals to understand or learn all the intellectual functions that people can do."

These recommendations may question the use of Wikipedia content, repeat your definitions, and argue that your translations are incorrect. ~

The outcome of the debate among dissenters often comes down to its fairness.. If traditional AI is indistinguishable from human, it must of course have simple rules (and we haven't started defining them yet!). ~

If ordinary AI is nothing more than a virtual ability to understand or learn intelligent tasks, it must be closer to computers than to humans.

In fact, if you win the battle for justice, your score really doesn't matter. In short - if you are a geek like me, the interview is a very interesting intellectual battle, but it does not help you find the truth, or it is a particularly useful way of communicating with the world.

Unfortunately a few weeks agochat turned into web3 chat.

Web3 Conversations: Intro Meetings

Ever since Satoshi Nakamoto dropped his free form in 2008, there has been cryptocurrency agreement and some opposition. Among its supporters, groups of nominees and chains have fought for supremacy. ~

The battle is stupid, rebellious and endless. Bitcoin and Ethereum. Ethereum and all other L1 smart contracts. Moderation and optimism. Bitcoin and the world. As I wrote before, I was a minimalist.

The first battle is the same, but the angle of attack changes and changes. First, the counter-argument is that cryptocurrencies are only used by terrorists. Then it's not good for the environment. When a crit is ignored, the crit moves on to the next crit. ~

The current controversy is that "cryptocurrencies" and web3 have always existed, including dApps, NFTs, social tokens and DeFi, as VC standards and not as distributed as one might think. ~However, people rarely switch sides or change their minds..

I think you can handle your own tests without affecting them cryptographically.Big Five Behavioral Test- Know who is on which side with the emotional. You can do the same by looking at someone's 50 recent tweets about a different technology or something new. If the folks of the 1950s, who didn't like Elvis and rock 'n' roll, are still alive today, they would probably oppose cryptocurrency. ~

So the real result is that people choose their careers first, then use all the evidence they have to make their case, don't accept the evidence and make up their minds.

In this sense, web3 is more of a discussion than a discussion. If you think this is a political controversy, the solution to this particular discussion is something like "Web3 good".

The protest overtures were tweeted in December by former Twitter CEO and current Block and Bitcoin minimalist Jack Dorsey.controversialracine:

Jack had the idea for VC to have a web3, so he got the spotlight.

In the second post, Executive Director Moxie Marlinspike wrote a very positive comment this month.My first idea of ​​web3"Add texture to it. Its biggest advantage for Combat is that Web3 really trusts the technology more than its opponents think. ~

You learned well in the conversation, so you should be able to see what's going on here. Jack and Moxie move the fight into an argument in the middle. ~

They're trying to win the Web3 translation battle and focus on winning easier than saying "Web3 is great", instead of "I'm afraid Web3 is more important than it looks." Like seasoned workers, Moxie and Jack are mobile.

Professor Scott Galloway then broke down the wall as an uninvited villain, and Professor Scott Galloway joined in the debate, exposing one of his lies in derogatory remarks for the protest.

Professor Scott Galloway of the Web3 conference

When I was in high school, sometimes I would have a random threesome. If your team has 2 good commentators and 1 weak commentator, the best during 3 presentationsstrong, weak, strong. A strong expert can set the tone, a weak expert can do a bit in the middle, and another expert can eliminate confusion with protests. ~

But maybe the weak debaters will beg for a rebuttal and you won't stand the resistance, so let them last... The train wreck. ~

The objection is the final argument. Often formed or broken. In the strike, the expert writes down the details of their team's thoughts, pulls the team against the idea, and then pulls an entire arc. No new information was allowed into the protest, it was just the details of what was said. The best you can do is use colorful and visual language on top of your existing ammo and design everything to make your team look great. ~

It should fit easily. No new content required. But in the hands of the weak or the excluded, strikes can be devastating. ~

When this happens, the problem is usually two people arguing over how to make the most of the argument and how they fit into the bigger story. They think their arguments to the bone, go deeper and understand what they are trying to say, but they have to rely on weak arguments to communicate them. ~

Although weak staff often leads to incorrect content, but in how they perceive their participants with presentation, word choice, flow and writing, they have made it clear that they are not their argument. You never know what they are talking about. ~

It's like reading a teacher's review on the web3. Wear a short, simple statement that reveals many of her tricks.

and! After reading this, you might be thinking, "Choice is stressful! He must know Web3 infrastructure and experience! I believe everything he says."

The truth is, this is a bad cut-and-paste rewrite of Moxie's work. It provides a link to the article (emphasizes "People don't want to run their own servers"), but doesn't mention the name Moxie anywhere in the sentence or sentence. ~

As a style it can be forgiven. Personally, I would make sure people don't think I was trying to share these ideas as myself, "as Signal CEO Moxie Marlinspike pointed out...". But it was just me. But there is something else hidden in it that shows that the teacher is nothing more than a thinker, not understood. ~

First of all, the only ingenious idea in this sentence is that you don't want the coder to buy a loaf of bread every time. Scarecrow. Sure, it wouldn't be nice if people had to write down the grocery store numbers, but that's fine because no one in the world suggested that people write a grocery line to buy something. ~

ib

No, nothing happened

Second, the teacherpointer versa16z brought Alchemy Series C for $3.5 billion in October, but missed the setup! If I were his interlocutor, I would be deaf. 16z seizes all the time, including investments in Coinbase and OpenSea.

However, this is only one sentence of a larger argument.

Jack first mentioned against the web3 attack and tried to create a topic to talk about VC members in web3, but he screwed it up and it worked. ~

Moxie added new points to the protest in her second speech, which included some of the Proposition's arguments. Technology is more important than people think, and it works well. ~

Then the pastor came forward and refuted the dissent... Oops.

also yes in dua,I think web chat 3 is a bit wrong, good and bad, good and bad., some need to be centralized, some need to be broken, and not everything is good or bad (for more nuanced ideas and composition, check out my friend Dror's article "Unpacking Web3 Sausage" in an interview.

Everywhere is always about marketing, and Web3 is no exception. I wish I had more conversations that start there. The argument is so...strained.

But like I said, I don't like being lied to with my friends. So I decided that what I really needed to do was learn how to do it right. ~

My Objection to the Web3 Discussion Recommendations

Ladies and gentlemen, judges, teams and esteemed contestants, thank you for joining us today for such a joyful day. ~

We're running a bit, so I want to let everyone know we're talking about. I would go straight to the job listing to make sure I didn't miss anything. "Web 3 is good."

It is now said that the controversy has turned into a debate on the concept of centralization versus decentralization, whether the center is omnipresent at the dinner table, in the tech group, or in the people of the platform using selected products, Web3 their will believe this. They showed that some areas are consistent. Of course it is ! No argument can be heard here.

But it is not because it is not the subject of the discussion that the protest wins.. Arguing about an object on the web3 or a network (like centralization or a malicious network) is not a problem. For example, it doesn't matter if it's Facebook or 4chan (which claims the internet is bad because of the website or channel talking about Japanese otaku culture and popular stickers). ) Yes. ~

We openly agree that there are bad guys, scammers and scammers, and many tokens are kept in the wallets of a few people. We agree that there is still a lot of work to be done to create a fair internet for those in need, and we agree that not everyone will do it. ~

We will go beyond our enemies.A fully decentralized future is impossible. Some people still prefer medium services, prefer all-in-one services, and some people prefer medium-sized services. ~

However, this argument is not about centralization versus decentralization, it is about choice. The debate is whether web3, the internet of tokens owned and maintained by users and developers, is good or bad for humans, not only in its nascent form today, but also for the word the promise that 'he holds.(See what I was doing there?)

It's about how the world would be a better place if entrepreneurs had web3 tools. Again, it's a matter of choice. It's the developer's choice and the user's choice. ~

Some people will want in-between services, others will want services that have full impact, and many will choose content that works across different products at different times. . We think they should have that option.

We think Web3 gives them that option, but we'll get to that.

First of all,As mentioned in Professor Galloway's protest, the protest can be reversed.. This will let you know why they are inappropriate, inaccurate, misleading, or easy to confuse. The important thing is that I will prove.When the evidence does not match, it affects the facts to make them compatible..

This web of lies supports what the teacher is trying to teach as an argument, and if you don't follow it, you understand. If you try to complete it, it will look like this:

The elites used the “promise of distribution” to maintain control and achieved unrealistic results. Centralization is evident in NFTs and owners of Bitcoin, the Forbes list of 12 cryptocurrency billionaires, potential monopolies such as Coinbase and OpenSea, and the infrastructure itself. There is sin. DAOs are not the basis because they are rules and not DAOs. Since DAOs choose their representatives, why do we need a new internet infrastructure when we have an SOE? Also, thanks to the Webb Space Telescope, centralization is possible and web3 devices like NFTs and DAOs are capable, but not much, and admins have to ditch new developers. 16z has also invested in medium-sized companies. Meet your new boss, your old boss. Also, if Elon is on my side, Gary Gensler works better. I don't want web3 to be controlled anymore. Web3 and Web2.0 are identical. Facebook and Google control too much. Ask a girl. Is this person a good person?

I'm exaggerating a bit here, but that's definitely not the case. Go back to read his article. It is to sink. It may not be the yoga talking, but it's who's talking. ~

But conflict should lead to compassion, not anger. Four false statements made my blood boil. Two of them were my personal interference, the third was part of my public outcry, and the fourth was the median. Without it, you will find that the teacher's arguments make more sense. ~

Mistake #1

Arguments are usually a battle for justice, so when the teacher used my modification of the 3 website themes (and called it "Yoga Bumble"), my ears went out (laughs). ). ~

Yogababble (Spiritualist Virtue Signal) is one of the favorite languages ​​of any teacher. He reiterated this later in the article, arguing that the division "created a Coachella celebration of deceit and anonymity, spirituality, virtue and skill." smartly protects criminals from negligence or liability. “I think my sense is perfect in that sense.~

I was a little upset that the professor changed my words for the content of his thesis. web3 is not really as decentralized as it seems. Specifically, it adds to the sense of centralization.Dispersionlo lus no.

Here is the correct definition I use in the sentence it refers to:Web3 is the Internet of Things between developers and users, measured by tokens.. "I didn't use the word decentralization on purpose because I didn't think decentralization was an important feature, but it was a good scarecrow, so the professor threw it there.

Out of charity, that's a nuance, and the article he's talking about talks about decentralization.

But after all, that's not the meaning that applies to me. He tried to change what I said to fit his argument. It's captured and you can stop trying. ~

Mistake #2

The second error concerns the numbers. Galloway uses the chart below to show that "the way media is delivered by a few hands is the real powerhouse in a few hands".

The figure on the right, representing BitInfo data, shows that 2% of funds are 95% Bitcoin. In other words, "If it was a country, Bitcoin would have the greatest diversity in the world."

(Of course, the professor's argument doesn't say that former enemy and now friend Jack and his company, Block, are one of the biggest bitcoin holders in the world, China about 2% of that.)

However, cryptocurrency data platform Glassnode found skepticism in its review in February. 2% includes exchange wallets such as Coinbase that hold millions of bitcoins. Correcting this, the top 2% is 71.5% of Bitcoin. This Glassnode article is unclear, it is the fourth that appears when you search for "Bitcoin Concentration" on Google.

We agree that 71.5% is still significant. It doesn't look like 95%, but it has the advantages of accuracy and importance to the enemy. I agree that we want members to share more. However, we disagree that this has anything to do with the teacher's argument. Especially because the professors' colleagues, Jack, web3 and Bitcoin are very different.

Another unimportant one, but I hope you accept the professor's example and ignore the evidence in his case. ~

Mistake #3

Next, the teacher uses the examples of legal DAOs that I joined to argue that DAOs are generally unaffected. More specifically, he writes:

He connected the conversation between main band Jonah Erlich with The Verge's Nilay Patel. Turns out that's not what Jonas was talking about. We have collected all the discussions here to show you how and how to choose a teacher.

Verge: If a person buys a token called $PEOPLE or $WTP, do they get a vote for a token?

Jonah: We still don't know the management model. And in the rush to buy this information, we have to decide many points after winning. If we win, we're talking about running a different model. One of the biggest concerns is that some big holders in the crypto world (we call them whales) will have too much control over what happens to their posts. Our great message: it is the movement of people. It's human law, so I want people to control it.

We learn many techniques. We are working on a direct, a vote, a vote. We still see a ballot for a portfolio, which does not represent a person, but it is very beautiful. The second vote is another way to reduce voting power when there are multiple tokens. Substitute 100 more polls for 100 tokens, the number of votes decreases as the number of tokens increases.

Verge: When you say DAOs run a story of organizational models, you're describing the story of speed. It is about establishing a vote and identifying how these elections represent the people. But these decisions must be taken by a group that does not have total independence. How does this affect the Dao Constitution?

Jonah: There's a good idea for further expansion. Starting something completely decentralized is very difficult. So you have to start early with a team, build something, and then move into distribution. Our plan with the ConstitutionDAO is to complete all distributions as soon as we win this race.

Only in this minimal translation can we read the words above that "there is no management standard because we can't find a way to stop the whales from crossing".

In fact, Jonah mentioned the whale in response to Patel's question about whether humans could get a single vote for a symbol, not why there was no regulatory model. The truth is inconsistent with the teacher's theory: the developers know exactly how to keep the whales out of control: don't throw away every piece.

As Jonas said, here's the real story:

From proposal to auction, it takes less than a week.

The team chooses things that don't play as big of a role as management style if we win until we win.

Ability to manage informed choices (Jona writes a few), and that's not the basic.

In the future, 99.9% of DAOs plan to gradually decentralize, which is the best guarantee. ~

It's not something I rely on for memory and direct experience. That's exactly what Jonah said in the interview of the teacher who chose to delete anything that didn't fit his thoughts.

Six-day unallocated work is a weak and unreliable claim of the entire DAO strategy. In fact, your argument for DAOs seems to be based on the general principle of simple and impartial governance that maximum decentralization is the goal and every decision should be made by one person, one vote. This does not affect the accuracy of the area.

Mistake #4

Finally, my opponents argue that the decentralization story is "a false god proclaimed by a high priest who crossed the Mars-great silver disc and advised the bishop that it was a guilty drama". ~

Aside from a handful of bitcoin extremists (who love to hate web3 anyway), there isn't a single giant that doesn't think it should be policed, let alone web3 or cryptocurrencies. Or other. This rule is heresy. Every developer and investor I've mentioned on this thread hopes that US policies will come into effect sooner rather than later, allowing us to avoid making unrealistic investments and moving on to uncertain investments. ~

In fact, when Chris Dixon of a16z and I wrote about the future of cryptocurrency on The Economist, we ended up calling for regulation of the US economy and beyond.

In the years to come, many leaders in the United States and other independent nations will recognize the need for good governance that supports new roles while enabling entrepreneurs to develop the next generation on the Internet.

16z, I'm an expert. The teacher decides to divide this into their own sections. The website has a special Web3 Policy section, which states:

We are all proud of web3's ability to improve trust and expand access to schools. But realizing its potential depends on the right policy. Good governance lays the foundation for how innovation can benefit humans while managing the real risk of harm to consumers. Now is the time to examine this perspective.

No one is showing that the rules are heretical. Instead, experts suggest, decision makers look at company information or oversee legal, international, or U.S. legal proceedings from the DAO.

ib 16z

It's true, but as @Jack said, this fact can be linked to the story of a good teacher.Do what you say, let the truth come to the world.".

Of course, there are many examples of misunderstanding or lack of desire to understand. It refers to 16z investing in exchanges on Coinbase support, but not in Uniswap decentralized exchanges. ~

He pointed to data showing that earlier blockchain tokens had a lot of internal members when IPOed, but the fact that most of these operations were created and funded during the activity of cryptocurrency devices, where venture capitalists must survive. this.

He was no doubt inspired by Moxie, who used OpenSea as an example of web3 centralization, and exaggerated his hand without knowing the facts.

Being able to create a powerful monopoly, personal channels (eg centralization) is a financial gain for VCs, and this is especially true for web3. As the largest NFT industry in the world, OpenSea is similar to other trading platforms. In exchange for easier and (slightly) more secure transactions, the company removes 2.5% of all trades.

Ironically, four days before the expert publishes his thesis,seem rareThe NFT platform has been released. As NFT platforms have always been in the market, what is particularly important is what they do for the first application. ~

Lux Lair airdropped 12% of its total $LOOKS tokens to users in June 2021 and December 2021, primarily driven by OpenSea consumer packaging products. This information is easily accessible and all advertisements are available on the Ethereum blockchain.

LookRare can attract the biggest OpenSea customers by offering the biggest rewards to the biggest OpenSea users. They can also trick those users into performing a LookRare activity to unlock tokens. You cannot request $200 LOOKS until the platform lists your NFTs for sale. Actually, I never registered NFT with OpenSea, but now I have NFT with LookRare! ~

So it works ? Yes, like this dune from @hildobby(Thin analysis)dashboard:

It was too early and said a lot about $LOOKS, but it was a good start. LookRare's daily volume is 2-3 times that of OpenSea, but OpenSea is still sucked by LookingRare in terms of daily users and daily packs. As some have pointed out, here's a little friction and water extraction that makes the difference. A good start to the week, showing the angle of attack that can be gained through decentralized services. It's average service.

Now LookRare needs to create a strong startup to retain and grow its users. To that end, we've created a platform that lowers fuel costs, rewards customers for buying and selling NFTs, lowers exchange rates, and allows $LOOKS token holders to distribute 100% of the price. ~

It is difficult to review this and call the owner of OpenSea. Of course, if you are looking, if you are trying to find the truth and not to win the argument. ~

In fact, it was very important Jack, Moxie and, of course, the professor did not come.It has nothing to do with whether the particular platform is average or who owns the amount of it. This is because data is public, developers and users have choices, and they choose a platform that removes less and gives more ownership.

In web3, if a platform makes a user effort, the user can choose to transfer their data and funds to another platform. ~

This also explains why all conversations are practically useless. As we speak, some entrepreneurs have fired up their laptops and made better Web3 examples than me. ~

Now I hope we can end this stupid argument and have more talk and think like Moxie's article instead of screaming loudly and not being like a teacher or just leaving it.

I believe Web3 is not all good or bad, but "good".. Yet it happens. It takes a lot of thought and honesty. Yes. The rules must reach their full potential.

The information provided here is provided for general information and informational purposes only. The contents of this article should not be construed as imposing investment, commercial, legal or tax information. We are under no obligation to make a personal decision based on this article and we encourage you to do your own research before taking any action. Although every effort has been made to ensure that all information provided here is accurate and up-to-date, omissions or errors may occur.