For years, the poster child for disruption, in the digital world, was MySpace. This was often cited as the frontrunner to an industry only to get usurped. In this case, with social media, MySpace was dominant until Facebook entered the picture.
Of course, for years, there were a number of "Facebook Killers" that rolled out. None were able to slow Zuckerberg and his machine down.
We can also point to Yahoo. That was a bit different situation since Google actually created a much better product. The results from Google were, and still are, unmatched.
As crypto grew, we saw a similar mindset. The reality is that, for all the market disruptors, it is not easy removing the entrenched especially when it is open source and people are free to build where they want.
When was the last time you saw an article written about Bitcoin Cash? SV? Gold? For that matter, when did Litecoin get any major publicity beyond simply the potential price moves?
If we think back to the battle over block size, the Bitcoin/BCash war was epic. There was a time when people actually thought BCash was a legitimate contender to BTC. From a market perspective, obviously this was a misguided notion. Nothing came close to Bitcoin, something we are reminded about daily.
The same was true for Ethereum. This is a bit different since development is crucial here. Successful competitors have appeared on the scene. Solana and some others have legitimate networks operating.
We are a decade later but the same debate rages. What will disrupt Ethereum and serve as its killer?
Perhaps we have to learn from history. Bitcoin is going strong. If we fast forward 5-10 years, will we be saying the same about Ethereum? People like Tom Lee seem to think so, making big bets on ETH.
That does not mean that networks like Solana are destined to fail even if Ethereum remains strong. The problem with the Bitcoin chains is they lack utility. In short, they are bad networks. When it comes to the "digital gold", it makes sense there is one primary winner.
With the EVMs, we are looking at digital networks that have development. This becomes a choice of where to go, something that could have a multitude of answers depending upon the developer.
Things are still up in the air on this discussion. Vitalik and the Ethereum core development team is certain they are on the path to scaling and reducing the transaction fees. If they accomplish that, a major threat is removed.
When looking at technology, identifying true disruption from fluff is difficult. It is easy to fall victim to emotion. Yet, if we step back, there is enormous benefit from being able to separate the two.
The Bitcoin-BCash dispute was highly charged, on both sides. We saw sound logic applied during the debate. However, if we looked at it realistically, bigger block size was only not the answer, BCash wasn't even in the game. A financial ledger doesn't hold much value on the market. Bitcoin was able to attain "brand" status, something that people have built upon.
BCash, Litecoin, and the others did not have this.
So is something Blockbuster or Netflix? Is the next "killer" just another Snapchat. Some might remember when that was forecast to take over social media. Naturally, it fell far short.
The same can be applied to Web 3.0. We talked about this for years, with little to show for it. At present, established Web 2.0 companies appear to be getting stronger. This can change but things are not getting off to a rocking start.
We do have to distinguish between a single product (or network) and a new structure for the Internet. Part of the core of Web 3.0 is decentralized networks, something we see growing in use. This means that we are putting rails in position from which true Web 3.0 can emerge.
Nevertheless, what is hype versus reality?
This is always the question in play. The problem with the "killers" is they often are nothing more than fluff.
Just ask those who sold their BTC for BCH.
