Hey guys! Today, let's delve into a core topic—why do more and more people believe that the 'Web3 narrative' is actually the key detour for cryptocurrency? 😜
In the previous content, we mentioned that the cryptocurrency industry has long deviated from its original vision: on one hand, it is obsessed with infrastructure innovation while neglecting the core attribute of 'currency'; on the other hand, technological iterations continue, yet the technological achievements have never been tied to real value creation, leading to an awkward disconnection within the industry. 😕 Today, we need to dig deeper—the biggest predicament of the industry is actually a fundamental misjudgment of 'what kind of applications should be built.'
There has always been an obsession within the cryptocurrency circle: to create applications that 'transcend finance.' After the birth of smart contract platforms, everyone became even more certain that 'value would be fed back to the underlying protocol from the application layer.' Coupled with the 'fat protocol theory,' this idea spread widely and almost became a consensus within the industry. 🤔 But the problem lies precisely here: the industry forcibly stuffed 'financialization' into scenarios where it was not applicable.
It is important to know that the success of the internet came from 'meeting the real needs of humanity,' for example, socializing is for communication, and gaming is for entertainment; however, the thinking behind cryptocurrency is the opposite—it forcefully injects 'financial mechanisms' into scenarios like socializing, gaming, and identity management. What is the result? Reality has slapped us in the face. 😣
Tokenized social applications: have fundamentally failed to enter the mainstream. Users participate not because the product itself is useful, but entirely relying on the incentive of 'earning tokens'; without rewards, people leave. 😒
Cryptocurrency gaming applications: directly resisted by traditional gaming communities. Originally, playing games was for relaxation and fun, but financialization turned 'leveling up' into 'watching prices and trading coins,' completely ruining the gaming experience—who can accept that? 😡
Tokenized identity/reputation systems: after much fuss, they are no better than traditional systems. The so-called 'advantages of decentralization' have not been demonstrated; instead, they have become complex and redundant due to the token mechanism. 😓
Here, it is crucial to emphasize: do not confuse cryptocurrency games with the (CS:GO) skin market! The two are fundamentally different—the skin market is merely an external trading ecosystem of the game, at most a form of additional interaction among players, and it has never changed the basic logic of 'playing games'; however, cryptocurrency games directly turn 'playing games' into 'making quick money,' losing even the core 'fun' of gaming—can they be compared? 😕
There is also a common misconception: tying 'blockchain technology' to 'decentralization.' In fact, blockchain is merely a 'technical tool for creating ledgers,' while decentralization is a feature that allows transactions to be carried out 'without third-party intermediaries'—decentralization comes at a cost: it consumes more computing power, is slower, and is more expensive; it is only valuable in scenarios where 'intermediary risk must be avoided' (such as cross-border transfers and decentralized payments). In most daily scenarios, people prefer to rely on authoritative institutions (like banks and platforms) for speed and peace of mind. 😏
For any platform, whether to choose blockchain should be considered as 'cost-effectiveness': most non-financial applications either do not need 'decentralization' at all (for example, social software—who cares about 'decentralized chatting'?), or the 'benefits of decentralization' far outweigh the 'technical costs.' Therefore, institutions using blockchain now are primarily to 'enhance efficiency' (such as simplifying supply chain reconciliations) rather than genuinely pursuing 'decentralization,' which is the pragmatic choice. 😎
Fortunately, the industry is finally beginning to 'wake up': many projects are starting to skip 'token economics' and focus on using blockchain to improve actual efficiency; value is no longer revolving around the underlying protocol but flows to applications that can solve specific problems; even the 'Web3 narrative' is quietly adjusting—this change, which is a return to reality, is actually a good thing. 😁
After all, the predicament that cryptocurrency is in today is fundamentally due to 'forgetting the original intention.' When Bitcoin was born, it was to respond to the 'failure of centralized currency systems' during the financial crisis. The core idea was 'to make currency independent of any trusted intermediary'; however, later projects gradually faded this mission, with some speculating and others trading concepts, leading the industry further astray. 😔
Therefore, the future direction is very clear: do not cling to building the 'Web3' concept, which is insubstantial, but rather combine 'blockchain technology' with the 'original mission of currency.' It is important to know that 'currency' is the most suitable scenario for blockchain—requiring decentralization (to avoid the risk of excessive issuance by central banks) and possessing inherent digital attributes (facilitating transfer and circulation). What the industry should do is create a more stable and practical currency system, rather than forcibly creating 'Web3 applications that no one needs.' 😎
Hey guys, do you think cryptocurrency can let go of the 'Web3 obsession' and return to the essence of currency? 🧐
