Suggested by 
Jack Chen
about 4 years ago
I've read articles, talked to tons of people, and for some reason I'm still unable to get a satisfactory explanation on what Web3 is, and how something like NFT (which i understand is only a small part of Web3) creates business value.
People say Web 1.0 was the internet/websites, and Web 2.0 is the centralization of data like social platforms etc, and Web 3.0 is autonomous, ubiquitous and decentralized. But then you have platforms that are still centralized in nature, while also using the 'blockchain' to verify. Just seems a bit off to me, but I know there's probably a better explanation I'm just not hearing.
Separate topic, say I'm a brand and I create my own set of NFTs / marketplace, what is the inherent business value of this? If I create something like what Gary Vee did for VeeCon, or Cameo Pass where I buy an NFT and I have exclusive access to events, merch, experiences, etc, what's the difference between just charging a membership and ticket? Why do I care if the NFT increases in value over time? Then as a user, I'm just in it to make money, no? Does NFT really provide that much value in terms of exclusivity and community?
A bit scatter brained above, but would love to have a deeper conversation about this. I trust it's ground breaking technology and that one day it'll be much more embedded into our day-to-day experiences. Just wanted to explore the bounds a bit.
VCs are dumping tons of money into this. Have billion dollar funds.
Projects are selling NFTs for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Its important to delineate what will actually be utility driven value that affects the day-to-day, versus the hype.
Are you interested in addressing this Unmet Need?
CEO @ AIDONIC LTD.
We provide end-to-end aid donations tracking using NFT blockchain technology for the philanthropic sector.
See: https://youtu.be/M9aa-784ch8
Reach out: severiyos.aydin@aidonic.io
Researching my next Startup
I love the question. I've wrested with the same questions. The part that excites me centers around the smart contract aspect of NFTs. Instead of thinking about NFTs as trinkets to own, speculate in, etc. I'm wondering if there's ways to re-monetize existing revenue streams.
This is probably wild - and haven't given it a ton of thought - but for example - in the music industry, what if artists could sell "shares" of songs as NFTs - then based on the way the smart contract is written, as a share-owner you'd automatically take part in whatever royalties were derived from the song. I remember doing a "back of the envelope" calc based on Spotify's $.00352/stream royalty and on average the artist made more money by selling 50% of each song as modestly priced NFTs, all the while providing engagement + recurring revenue + potential investment (via selling share at higher price) for fans. (Keep in mind that the way the smart contract is written, the artists can get a cut from every future transaction of that NFT too - another revenue stream)
There could be lots of opportunity in the intellectually property, rights management, royalty world.
USAF Veteran. MBA. @ I am a recent MBA grad, concentrating on Technology and Operations.
NFTs do come off as super scammy, but I chalk that up to hyper novelty and a much younger user base.
The proof of concept for NFTs is just really goofy artwork, but there is great potential, like authentication of any owned asset.
Just as the NFT for your Bored Ape points to an image file hosted on someone else's server, so an NFT for the title of your car could point to your state's vehicle registry. Rights to the vehicle could be transferred more simply, as all the existing checks could be streamlined into the code for the transaction. Sub this idea for any legal property.
CEO | Founder | Managing Partner @ Platform Venture Studio
Firstly, I agree that many - perhaps the majority - of blockchain/web3 startup ideas I see feel like a technology looking for a problem, rather than the other way around. NFTs are currently the "on trend" thing that I see shoehorned into almost every fundraising deck, no matter how poor the fit.
Additionally, there are a large number of outright scammers in the domain which means I have my BS detector set to "extra high" whenever I'm looking at one.
With that said, one of the core premises of web3 is decentralization or the lack of a need for a central authority. This is potentially of interest because running building and running a central authority can be expensive. These costs have to be passed on to the users of the central authority. So, if you can eliminate the need for a central authority, you can reduce the cost of transactions.
Central authorities also tend to become monopolies because they have complete control. This stymies competition and keeps prices higher too.
In simplified terms, blockchain lets you prove that X happened, undeniably, without needing a trusted authority to confirm that X happened.
To take a common example, property title companies charge and arm and a leg for what basically amounts to filing paperwork when you buy/sell a house, all so that a trusted authority can say that you definitely do own your house. Property title insurance alone is a $22BN industry. If you could eliminate the need for the central authority, you could save homeowners billions.
The issue is that, as you allude to, the extra cost of the central authority in many use cases is trivial, and/or the value of the thing being protected by the central authority is trivial.
So, I look for cases where the current central authority is expensive and the cost of a mistake is large.
e.g. smart contracts that avoid paying expensive lawyers for very standardized transaction types.
e.g. medical credentialing that ensures patient safety and faster access to care.