After an hour long discussion via call with someone and after over a year of working in web3. I can safely say the entire web3 is actually a sham. Im too tired and exhausted from scams and frauds to explain why. It is just a bunch of overhyped artificially inflated bullshit to lure you into the ponzi scheme. I am almost 100% sure with proof how this is all a lie. Web3 is equivalent to government and political corruption - just a bunch of EXTREMELY WEALTHY people ripping poor and middle class off by defrauding them through crypto and nfts to make the rich richer. Its truly disgusting. There is no way in HELL that you can work in this space and expect to succeed if you are not already wealthy. People apparently spend between $10,000 up to $500,000 on a single project for marketing. They spend it so easily as if they earn that sum of money back by tomorrow. This is truly sickening. The reason why marketing costs so much is because it manipulates naive and newbies, lures them into the web3 world by creating an illusion of get rich quick schemes "hey buy this jpg for $2000 and you'll be able to sell it for $20,000 in a week!" Truly truly sickening. Web3 isnt even a wild west. Web3 is a fucking dystopian void where these fucktards are like animals fighting each other who's gonna defraud a bigger chunk of thousands and millions of dollars from each other. Literal fucking shithole. I am so disappointed. I thought web3 technology was useful. Perhaps it is but people's greed has molded this technology into crime and frauds. Which is what it has become

  • 6
    Wait until you find out that Meta and Google are doing shitty things to try to get governments to do regulation of the internet. This will lock out smaller players on the net and destroy free speech. Only the wealthy companies will be able to afford to comply with the 1984 rules.
  • 5
    Web 3 is new.

    The concept of decentralized stuff is something I like. Moves us further from corpo dystopia.

    It's kinda like it was in web 1 actually 😂

    However, like everything new, say, discovery of America, California gold rush, etc, it attracts people with dubious morals trying to get rich fast. And they do. By taking other, more naive, people's money.

    Despicable, yes, but happens kinda everywhere.
  • 0
    I'm surprised at how much work you must have put into making such a great site.
  • 0
    @hopeproclaim what site bro
  • 0
    @Demolishun While this is getting a bit OT, consider this:

    Let's start with the assumption that regulation without further qualifier isn't just good or just bad. It depends on the specifics. E.g. food safety laws are generally considered to be important and good for people that eat food.

    Now, a big corp can see that some regulation will come, maybe because it is demanded by citizens (doesn't matter for them). For the business, there are multiple options:

    a) Try to stop regulation
    -> Probably won't work and is very risky for PR

    b) self-regulate
    -> very successful strategy in many fields. The demand for official regulation might be suppressed and you basically set your own rules.

    c) Influence the regulation
    -> try to soften the impact and create loopholes. anticompetitive strategies could be tried but are more risky to backfire.

    c is closest to what you said, but I'd argue the issue is that incompetence and corruption allows this, not that regulation by itself is bad.
  • 0
    @tHe-jAsE read it its worth it
  • 1
    @saucyatom Funny you mentioned food safety regulations, because I'm pretty sure a lot of people would love to get some of the food that's generally safe to eat, but can't be legally distributed or even given away because it isn't 100% within those regulations. A lot of food isn't even expired or "bad", it just doesn't have the means to prove it meets all the safety regulations and the extra checks would cost more than could be gained from selling it.

    And if you're not convinced yet, Philip Morris, which owns most of the world's largest tobacco brands, is actively pushing for bans on cigarettes in multiple countries, including US and UK. Heineken, owner of literary hundreds of brands of beer, is pushing for more restrictions on alcohol. Oh, on a completely unrelated note, Philip Morris also owns several major e-cigarette brands which are much harder to compete with, and Heineken is pushing its brands towards alcohol-free beer, which is nearly impossible to make by craft breweries.
  • 0
    @hitko It depends on the implementation. For example where I live, due dates usually mean "at least durable until X", except for microbiologically unsafe foods like raw fish or meat which is not allowed to be sold afterwards.

    I was rather referring to standards in production/preparation, but having some insight into that, I also know that there are some issues (sometimes too high requirements for small producers, but loose inspections, benefitting those not playing by the rules).

    wrt companies wanting regulation in my (EU) perspective I only see it the way I described it, trying to shape upcoming regulation but not trying to create new for anticompetitive reasons. However that might be due to my local perspective.
  • 0

    A must read for this audience.
Add Comment