You can read the Yesterweb article that i'm responding to here.

Thoughts:

Lately, I've noticed a growing trend across websites in my linked webrings: the use of the "No to Web3" button encouraged by Yesterweb. I understand that personal opinions vary, but it frustrates me to see such blatant misinformation being spread under the guise of rejecting Web3. This is especially prevalent on Neocities sites, which often celebrate individuality and technological curiosity, making it all the more ironic.

Neocities itself is a centralized platform. Users of the platform rely on it to host and serve their websites, and their content is subject to its terms of service and operational control. On top of that, many of these critics actively engage in and support centralized systems like ICANN, which maintains a monopoly over top-level domains (TLDs). The irony is palpable: while dismissing Web3's potential for decentralization, they actively participate in and rely on centralized platforms and organizations that epitomize central control.

Before diving in, I want to clarify something upfront: I am in no way a "cryptobro." My frustration stems from a deep dislike for the spread of misinformation, not from some blind allegiance to blockchain technologies. Web3 is far from perfect, but dismissing it outright with oversimplified and misleading arguments only hinders meaningful discussion. Let's break down Yesterweb's critiques of Web3 and why they're flawed.

On Decentralization:

One of Yesterweb's central claims is that Web3 is not decentralized and is controlled by a small group of entities or companies. This interpretation misrepresents what decentralization means in the context of blockchain technology. Web3 leverages distributed ledgers like Ethereum and Solana, which operate on thousands of nodes worldwide. These nodes ensure no single entity holds monopolistic control.

Moreover, tools like cryptographic wallets and DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) enable users to participate directly in governance and control their data without intermediaries. Are there challenges like concentration of staking power? Yes. But these are transitional growing pains, not evidence of inherent centralization.

On Security:

Yesterweb's claim that Web3 is inherently insecure conflates early-stage vulnerabilities with systemic issues. While smart contract bugs and protocol exploits are real, these reflect implementation flaws, not problems with blockchain itself.

Web3, at its core, enhances security through immutable ledgers and cryptographic protections. By removing centralized intermediaries, it reduces single points of failure, a common issue in Web2 platforms. The criticism here fails to acknowledge the actual security improvements Web3 offers.

On the "Ponzi Scheme" Claim:

Calling Web3 a "Ponzi scheme" is one of the most misleading critiques. A Ponzi scheme is characterized by guaranteeing returns, paying old investors with funds from new ones, and lacking underlying value. Web3 does not inherently promise returns or rely on unsustainable economic mechanisms.

Yes, token-based economies can reward early adopters, but this is no different from traditional startups offering equity or bonuses to early contributors. Furthermore, many Web3 projects provide tangible value, such as decentralized finance (DeFi), NFT platforms supporting creators, and utility tokens for governance or service access.

On Reputational Challenges:

Web3's reputation has undoubtedly taken a hit due to scams and overhyped projects. However, this issue is not unique to Web3. Traditional finance and Web2 platforms also face fraud, phishing, and breaches. Instead of dismissing Web3, we should focus on improving education, regulation, and best practices to address these challenges.

My Frustration:

The "No to Web3" button has become a symbol of dismissiveness and, frankly, an unwillingness to engage critically with the topic. It angers me to see this button spread, especially in communities that pride themselves on curiosity and openness to innovation. By perpetuating these simplified critiques, we risk stifling meaningful exploration of Web3's potential.

The irony is insane: many of the same people using the "No to Web3" button rely on centralized platforms like Neocities or unquestioningly use services governed by ICANN's monopoly over domain names. These actions inadvertently reinforce centralized systems while rejecting the very concept of decentralization that Web3 strives to achieve.

The conversation around Web3 should not be reduced to binary “yes” or “no” arguments. Instead, we need nuanced discussions that acknowledge both its potential and its flaws. I hope this post encourages more people to critically evaluate what Web3 offers instead of parroting oversimplified criticisms.