Even when justified, there is no easy way to say “I think you are wrong” to someone who is an established expert in their domain. This is especially true when one holds that person in high regard. Frankly, I cannot speak highly enough of Grady Booch. I have absolute reverence for him, and even identifying Grady as an “expert” seems diminutive. With a lifetime of exceptional contributions, Grady is unquestionably an authority on computing.
Since a tweet isn’t enough to communicate my reasons for challenging Grady (and most attempts at reasonable responses tend to be draw a pile on of Twitter trolls), I’ll make an attempt at better explaining my position here.
To be clear, this is not a condemnation of Grady. In fact, I found inspiration to provide further clarity after an opportunity for open and frank dialogue. I thank Grady for his willingness to engage in productive discourse, as is necessary to find common ground during contentious times. Unfortunately most of my interactions are not with someone so informed, and I write this primarily for those who trend more towards being abrasive and reactionary.
A disturbingly broad swath of my fellow technologists seem to have written off all things web3 (related: WTF is Web3?), even going as far as to banish participants as untouchables. I find this particularly distressing because these are also people who throughout my life have been relentlessly inquisitive and overwhelmingly open to novel ideas. I have regularly sought them for thoughtful evaluations and impartial guidance. Why now do they seem to have turned their backs on curiosity and exploration?
It would not be fair of me to paint everyone in broad strokes. The anti-web3 crowd runs the full gamut from cautiously skeptical to openly violent. I’ll save the “Can you believe...” conversation for another article, but will say that the most unexpected aspect about my journey into web3 has been abhorrent confrontations from antagonists. The mere mention of the word is often enough to draw unprovoked attacks, be threatened with violence, and encouraged to do things such as “Eat shit and die.” While nerds have always been stuffed into lockers, this is next level. It also stings more when targeted by ones own kind. Perhaps this is to be expected, as Arthur Schopenhauer said "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident."
Although such treatment is never deserved, the tragedy here is the ignorant majority being actively discouraged from even seeking positives within the space. Wholesale dismissing the movement not only emboldens unchecked extremists, but when reputable and respected voices make broad claims, others who believe they are heeding warnings are also overlooking the most interesting and compelling aspects, such as being able to provide novel coordination mechanisms to overcome the tragedy of the commons.
As supporting evidence, I will highlight that vocal opponents of web3 overwhelmingly do not have even a single mention of any of the terms that have recently captured my attention:
and so much more...
While I suppose it is possible that this could be willful omission, I think it is more likely that many critical of web3 are simply unaware of related developments. If we are to “Build machines of exquisite, beautiful, complexity and grace, that will extend the human experience in ways beyond our imagining” (as Grady Booch so wonderfully describes in his transmedia documentary: Computing) then a lack of completeness cannot be grounds for declaring the earliest of efforts to be worthless.
However we want to refer to people who are proponents of positive developments, and regardless of our own opinions about the validity or efficacy of web3, we must stop attempting to gatekeep ‘good’ and respect the fact that humanitarian protagonists have discovered web3 as a schelling point. We are not witnessing a final product, but merely one small aspect of a complex evolution. I won’t claim that the invention of flight is an appropriate comparison, but I will suggest that web3’s Wright Flier is likely under construction; perhaps in time we will look back on Satoshi Nakamoto as our own Sir George Caley. We have heard many say that we are still early, which seems to be about as good as we can do to describe our drunkenness with the future, as we experiment, invent, and explore all of what is possible.
When seeking early feedback about this piece I was told “We rarely see people inside the Web3 ecosystem calling out bad players.” I needed a few days to digest this, because I stand united with my web3 peers in clear and unambiguous opposition to the unsavory aspects of web3. Myself and others frequently voice criticisms. Vitalik Buterin expressed his frustrations in a recent Time Magazine cover story saying “I’ve been yelling a lot, and sometimes that yelling does feel like howling into the wind.” If the figurehead of this movement can get as far as the cover of Time magazine and still not be heard, then perhaps our problem goes beyond mere echo chambers. Perhaps this is our multiverse.
My peers have already internalized Vitalik’s concerns that “Crypto itself has a lot of dystopian potential if implemented wrong” and “The goal of crypto is not to play games with million-dollar pictures of monkeys, it’s to do things that accomplish meaningful effects in the real world,” “We have to be intentional, and make sure more of the right things happen.” We completely understand these comments to be a given, and being asked to condemn unrelated behavior feels like being asked to take responsibility for murders committed by someone else; I don’t think anyone would hold the opinion that we need people protesting in the streets to convince the masses that murder is wrong.
We must recognize an urgent need to differentiate our efforts, which may in fact include being more vocal in opposition against the things we disagree with. We must help those broadly critical of web3 understand that collateral damage is possible. We all have a great disdain for the ugly, and we are intentionally working towards a better future. Our cross hairs must remain focused on a common enemy. We must work together to disable and eradicate bad actors.
Existing efforts do not have a monopoly on humanity. While I believe progress will be made with or without support from the masses, we would all be far better off giving creatives the benefit of the doubt, and allowing the newest of ideas a modicum of opportunity to succeed.
Let’s not allow an association with a term to preclude anyone from answering this call. We are exploring connection, finding delight, and pursuing liberation through web3. It is reasonable for us to encourage others to seek what is possible, in wherever places and in whatever ways that they find wonder; the joy of discovery is not ours to define.
While there are many who are of the opinion that web3 has no redeeming qualities, we must allow adequate opportunity for those at the forefront of discovery to share what they learn. Fledglings will never soar if swatted down at the moment they disembark. The consequence of mistaking hubris for certitude is that we may never have the opportunity to know what can be achieved.
We need support to help find and patch holes, remove rot, bolster weak areas, and identify parts that are deserving of praise. We must encourage great minds to participate, not shy away for fear of becoming targeted by misplaced disdain. After all, as so beautifully stated in Grady’s closing statement in Woven on the Loom of Sorrow, “Our responsibility is to take what we have done with this marvelous technology that has been forged in the fire of warfare, and use it so that we may move from conflict to connection, that we may move from destruction to delight, and move also from persecution to liberation”
Perhaps more time is necessary before we find out what degree of goodness exists within the walls of web3. In the meantime, let’s remember kindness as we encourage our brazen explorers to achieve what is possible within the fraught and complicated world of web3.