By way of cryptocurrencies, blockchain was adopted straight from stakeholders, disrupting how innovation had always reached mainstream acceptance: by having advocates and evangelists disseminate engaging narratives and vivid examples of how the novelty would improve people’s lives.
After purging those go-betweens, their merit became evident, but Web3 would rather go without or create a digital solution than have them back.
No disruption can make narrative redundant; humans process reality and learn through it, and refusing to tell
one’s own story means others will, and it’s likely to breed poor outcomes.
Web3 displays most: inability to relay its scope and utility, no shared industry’s voice or language, public perception partial and damaging due to dubious, fraudulent, illegal sounding stories that built the narrative it lacks control over, unable even to react, reply or clarify falsehoods and attacks.
But we took matters into our own hands, went back there, studied, spoke to many, and got to refine our stories
with them in a manner that allows understanding.
We can praise a fantastic Web3 platform and point out its lousy user experience, we talk format only when content requires it, and we can tell the technical aspects constantly improving from the core features that will remain.
Humans need past references to grasp future possibilities and shift from now to new. All we need to engage in the
upcoming is to fathom its potential.
