Reading all the hot takes on crypto/web3 going “but what use case does it solve?” and mostly thinking to myself that these folk have such confidence in their opinions.
10
9
55
Conversation
The nice thing about reading history is that it repeatedly (and I mean REPEATEDLY) disabuses you of the notion that tech needs a clear use case in its infancy.
I put myself in the shoes of mistaken commentators and mostly think “hmm, yeah, that take makes sense.”
It’s humbling.
4
24
Replying to
The point isn't that such cases do not exist. There is tech that succeeded because it had a clear use case, as well as tech that succeeded even though it had no clear use case. The point is that 'having a use case' is not a useful/sufficient criterion for tech success.
2
1
2
Yup! Here's a more interesting question: "what is a set of disqualifying criteria that is more useful?"
and
"Assuming that innovation is the result of a complex system of indiv actors (who recombine innovations), how do you reason about higher potential recombinations?"
