Amid all this sudden blockchain skepticism, one question remains prominent in my mind: where were all these skeptics when blockchain enthusiasm was on the rise?
Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but you have to wonder if this chorus of I-toldya-so's were genuinely right, or if they are merely rewriting history to boost their own credibility.
Blockchain was always experimental. The chance of success on any given project was always slim, but the potential payoff huge. So, putting anything more than what you are willing to lose is reckless.
> where were all these skeptics when blockchain enthusiasm was on the rise?
Literally here, in every single thread to the chagrin of the enthusiasts whose defining identity became "you just don't get it, man". Blockchain stuff, by anyone who didn't have a vested financial interest in it has always been called out for what it is.
Now when the AI hype eventually dies down then you'll have a point.
> where were all these skeptics when blockchain enthusiasm was on the rise
You might need to define the exact period when it was "on the rise", but as far as I've seen, in the last six or seven years they (we) have been very vocal and all over the place - including on this very site.
I've been here all the time, but it is hard to keep talking when you are shouted down by all the people who bought into crypto late and are trying to pump it higher.
I don't know if I accept the premise. I've been hearing that "blockchain is a solution in search of a problem" critique as long as I've heard about blockchains. I think that during a hype cycle, the hype is what gets signal boosted so you see a lot more "here's how blockchains are going to solve X" content than you do content repeating for the millionth time that the blockchain doesn't actually solve the problem any better than a database would.
As others have pointed out, there was always debate. But I think what's changed is that the down-shouters have backed off. When we'd say "there's nothing here, and what is here is likely semi-criminal" there was almost always a vigorous thread of people who would argue back.
Especially so because a large part of the HN community have this libertarian tinge which brought them philosophically close to web3/crypto generally.
Many of those people have gone quite quiet recently. And I don't want to turn this into a "told you so" moment; I think this is good. Let's try to let the hype cycle end without knives coming out.
The question is what the long-term shake-out from all of this will be for tech more broadly. Many legitimate technologies and projects have gotten themselves caught up in this hype cycle, and there could be fall-outs for people and projects that associated themselves this way -- what I'm calling "crypto-taint." I'm thinking everything from the Rust PL community (where the bulk of employers are web3 companies, it seems) through to a lot of recent novel database tech generally.
I recently quit a job in part for this reason. The product itself was not crypto, but was associating itself with the language and community around ETH. I personally don't want the taint on my resume, even if it's merely marketing.
Where VCs put their money can be fickle. And the consequences for business entities emphasizing in the wrong place can be brutal. This is the third "down cycle" I've been through in my 25ish year software career, and I have some sense of how it could shake out.
Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but you have to wonder if this chorus of I-toldya-so's were genuinely right, or if they are merely rewriting history to boost their own credibility.
Blockchain was always experimental. The chance of success on any given project was always slim, but the potential payoff huge. So, putting anything more than what you are willing to lose is reckless.