On the subway this morning, I looked up and saw an advertisement for a new cryptocurrency. Specifically, I looked up at a bright red rectangle behind a large white font that read: It’s never too late to be early.
We are in the midst of a speculation boom that has been variously compared to the Beanie Babies craze, the dotcom bubble and tulip mania. A year ago, the average person might never have heard the term Web3. Now we all gotta look like Paris Hilton looked a cartoon monkey NFT (non-fungible token) that Jimmy Fallon spent $216,000 on, then remarks, “I love the captain’s hat.” Articles about this new vision of the Internet appear in the technical and business sections of national newspapers more or less daily, usually with the caveat that many people sincerely believe that Web3 is a Ponzi schemea scam, a multi level marketing arrangement and a scam.
This assessment has its own rapidly growing army of adherents. “Web3 is a Ponzi scheme” has circulated as a meme, in widely quoted manifestos and in viral blog posts. Maybe soon it will be a political slogan. (Those with a particular contempt for NFTs have already picked up the moniker “right clicks”.) Comparing Web3 to a Ponzi scheme is useful because, unlike Web3 itself, a Ponzi scheme is easy to understand: we we all know what’s wrong with scams, and we understand that ponzi schemes are bad. We may not understand what people mean when they talk about blockchain, but we feel like we are meant to be their brands and we are under pressure to join them or die.
If this rhetoric is right, if Web3 is literally a scam – it depends on which part of a vast ecosystem of new technologies you are talking about. (Clearly, scams abound; the Federal Trade Commission has gone so far as to officially announce that scams abound.) At its core, Web3 envisions a massive change in the habit of accessing the Web through centralized platforms such as Facebook and Google, and toward a standard for communicating, storing information, and processing payments through a supposedly incorruptible, unmodifiable, and foolproof system. This might give the average person greater control over their personal data and the consequences of their interactions, but for various reasons it has so far been a bit of a joke.
The term itself—Web3– was first used by Gavin Wood, the co-founder of the popular Ethereum blockchain, in 2014, in an essay now referred to as “seminal” and “classic” by crypto enthusiasts. The vitriol that can erupt whenever his neologism is mentioned – the fuel that often takes these conversations from zero to 100 – comes from the creeping sense that Wood and others’ vision of the future is inevitable, that Web3 will see the light of day despite anyone’s reservations, even though it appears to be a scam. The frenzy of speculation collides with a counter-frenzy of resentment.
People who say Web3 is a scam have other issues with the idea. In fact, they hate him every day for a new reason. I am not exaggerating: they to hate this.
When the Associated Press announced last month that it would be selling some of its photographs as NFTs, the decision was describe as “weak, amoral”, and the news agency was Recount “eat shit”. (Dwayne Desaulniers, who runs the AP Project, told me he spent eight hours sifting through Twitter replies. “The volume, I was surprised,” he said.) fall, when NFL star Aaron Rodgers said he would take part of his salary in bitcoin, he was lambasted for participating in what some said amounted to an approval of “money laundering”. When the “fan token” platform Socios got involved in British Premier League football, Crystal Palace fans showed up to a game with a banner reading, PARASITES MORALLY BANKRUPT SOCIOS NOT WELCOME. On Twitter, the anti-web3 mob recently circulated a digital poster in the style of 19th century newspaper advertisements, featuring NFTs fuck suck and Open your eyes, fuck the brains ornate script headliner.
It is said that a person investing in crypto or a shared future on the blockchain hate the earth and support “the hyper-financialization of all human existence”. Or is it a greedy doofus that deserved of wasting millions of dollars on digital monkey portraits while Marc Andreessen gets rich, if not an embarrassing freak who is really just looking for cover to debate age of consent laws. But the simple insistence that Web3 is a scam – no more, no less – remains the most consistent criticism. After Kim Kardashian was sued for promoting a dodgy cryptocurrency investment opportunity on her Instagram, early 2000s teen soap opera star Ben McKenzie (is it weird?) , Wrote an essay for Slate with journalist Jacob Silverman lambasting Kardashian and saying that celebrities who promote crypto “might as well be asking for payday loans or sitting their audience at a rigged blackjack table.” Looks bad.
The anger at Web3 echoes the fury over the collapse of subprime mortgages nearly 15 years ago. The rude behavior this event exposed and the government bailouts that followed helped drive the early adoption of bitcoin, which has been convincingly described as a financial system based on “evidence,” rather than type. of “trust” that had just brought the world in. a huge mess. Today, ironically, the same historical event serves as the motive for the Web3 reaction. “I saw a fools’ gold rush up close in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis,” said Michael Hsu, a banking regulator at the U.S. Treasury Department, in a September speech to the Blockchain Association. . “It feels like we may be on the verge of having another one with cryptocurrencies.”
Last year, when a group of Reddit users spent weeks ripping GameStop stock just to annoy everyone – and when the New York Young Republican Club responded by staging a baffling reoccupation of Wall Street – they were thinking back to the 2008 crisis. (The bailouts were “always a conspiracy,” argued Paige K. Bradley in a report for art forum. “People are pissed.”) So are Web3 resisters in the very active Reddit forums r/CryptoReality and r/Buttcoin. In the latter, crypto enthusiasts are stereotyped and mocked as “millennial male versions of MLM huns peddling diet shakes on Facebook” and parodied in articles with headlines like “Are we living in the future? (Bought snacks with But they are also portrayed as the evil engineers of a foretold meltdown that pushes us all into a future that is actually history repeating itself.
An r/Buttcoin moderator, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of harassment and doxing, admitted that the exchange bit for end is juvenile, but told me I couldn’t figure out how annoying it is when “crypto bros” spam Reddit with their links and say anyone who disagrees with them is a jerk. (The oldest bit on the r/Buttcoin forum comments “it’s good for bitcoin” under any crypto-related news which should ostensibly be disappointing, in imitation of the unwavering faith of the crypto bros.) The moderator has also stated the forum serves as a public archive of the predatory behavior of crypto bros.
“It’s not about whether the market is going to crash; it will collapse,” he said. “And when that happens, there’s going to be a lot of people claiming they’ve been victimized. And there’s a big group of us who think we can’t just let them get away with it. He shouldn’t be a bailout for these people.
The pandemic has changed the way Americans view scams. A few years ago, when Donald Trump was in power and Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes was awaiting trial, swindling seemed to be the default mode of conduct in a society based on self-interest. the New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino described it in his 2019 bestseller, Trick Mirror: Thoughts on Self-Delusionas “the definitive millennial ethos”.
We’ve been tickled by scams, found ourselves reluctantly in awe of them, and indulged in morbid curiosity about their inner workings. But somehow, the relentless misery and staggeringly uneven results of the past two years have brought an unexpected correction to that mindset. A new exasperation has settled around billionaires, out-of-touch celebrities and influencers of questionable talent who failed to find the courage within themselves to act with good taste while others suffered, and who were isolated. from the worst of the pandemic by the money that kept pouring in. Calls have sounded for the suppression of all liars, hypocrites and opportunists exploiting despair.
Surely the most online stretch in human history played a role in this reversal. On social networks, anti-scamming movements have multiplied by likes and shares as quickly as the scammy movements themselves. Anti-scammers seem driven by frustration with the way things work and that they haven’t had a say in their arrangement. Likewise, with Web3, the anger seems to stem from the knowledge that ordinary people may be unable to apologize for the possibly tragic ramifications of a movement they neither pursued nor supported. “If it’s just a dot-com bubble, it sucks for people who have invested,” American University law professor Hilary Allen said recently. Voice. “But if it’s [like] 2008, so we’re all screwed, even those of us who don’t invest, and that’s not fair.
When I spoke with Wood, the co-founder of Ethereum, and asked if he was surprised by the recent pushback against Web3, he seemed unfazed. People are just afraid of change, he said, and that’s okay because, like any major societal change, Web3 will come in waves. “First there are the builders,” he said, “the people who are building the next generation of things.” Then there’s a larger group of influencers who “think pretty deeply about how they live their lives.” If this second group subscribes to a coherent argument as to why the major societal change is to their advantage, it will “largely drag the rest of the population along”.
Being trained is what people really, really feel. And that resentment becomes a strength in itself.
When you purchase a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for your support Atlantic.