The usage of putting "2.0" after something as if to call it the ultimate upgrade of the thing that came before is grossly overused in this day of age. Imagine calling air in the Matrix "Air 2.0" as if to say you no longer need air in real life as long as you have it in the Matrix, and not only that, the air inside the Matrix is superior in every way. Similar leaps in logic must be made to say things like "Bitcoin is Gold 2.0" or "We're building Web 4.0". In many circumstances, it is just absolutely ridiculous marketing that hinges on a lie with the sole person of selling a product and scooping value from anyone gullible enough to buy the bullshit story.
Gold 2.0
Calling Bitcoin "Gold 2.0" is such a gross oversimplification I don't even know where to begin. Even then, compared to DEFI 2.0 or WEB 4.0, Gold 2.0 certainly does make a lot more sense. Because Bitcoin is almost certainly an exponentially form of value storage, to the point of not even being a store of value, but rather a generator of value, and perhaps even a blackhole that has been sucking in value for more than a decade now at speeds humanity can't even wrap their heads around. Exponents have a tendency to confuse people. We think linearly.
However, to call Bitcoin Gold 2.0 heavily implies that Bitcoin is better than Gold in every way. That's what 2.0 means: that we can completely replace the old solution with the new solution and never use the archaic version ever again. We are never going back to CD players or tape decks. That is a fact. We are never going back to hard drives with megabytes of storage space on them. We are never going back to single-core processors or 16 bit architecture. We are never going back to using horses over heavy machinery.
However, if the Internet goes down, we sure as shit might go back to the gold/silver standard in a pinch. Calling Bitcoin Gold 2.0 is so ridiculous on so many levels... they don't even exist in the same universe. One is a physical real world asset and the other is mathematical digital software. Comparing the two is a fools errand, and fittingly the comparison only exists in a sad attempt to explain it to newbies that have no idea what's going on. The problem? Those newbies aren't newbies anymore, but they are still spouting the Gold 2.0 moniker like they're the smartest people in the world. Some people need to get over themselves.
WEB 4.0 WEB4 is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. There are actual people out there talking about working on WEB4, when WEB3 doesn't even exist yet. This would be like saying you're working on a spaceship while cars were invented. It just makes one look like a delusional idiot that's once again just trying to trick people with some bullshit sellout marketing lingo that don't know any better. Pretty gross honestly. Not the vibe we're looking for.
What would WEB4 even be?
Web 4.0 is literally impossible to define because we're not even quite sure what WEB3 is yet. Web 3 would have been impossible to define before Bitcoin existed, and only after solving the Byzantine General's problem did it even become fathomable that WEB3 could exist in the first place.
The jumps between WEB one, two, and three are so vast that talking about WEB4 like it's real ends up just being downright embarrassing. Not a great way to gain any kind of long term reputation with communities that you'd want taking you seriously. Oh well, scammers gotta scam. Most people lack talent so they'll try to cheat instead. That's just the way of the world.
DEFI 2.0
This is the most interesting one and the purpose of this entire post. DEFI 2.0 is defined as being "more sustainable", but I guarantee it is not. DEFI "2.0" is a parasite.
Using the term DEFI 2.0 is especially egregious because DEFI 2.0 tokens actually depend on DEFI 1.0 coins to exist so they can leech value from them. Can you imagine? Creating a "superior" version of code that actually fully depends on the old version and then calling it 2.0? So ridiculous.
DEFI 2.0 thrives on deflation and not diluting the value of the token by printing a bunch of them. This appeals to the crypto bros, and is even how Polycub is being marketed and deployed tomorrow. However, if other coins out there did not provide yields, then Polycub kingdoms could not exist, and thus all of DEFI "2.0" would cease to exist. If every DEFI token was a DEFI 2.0 token DEFI would disappear into nothing.
Compare this to any other 2.0 product and we see what nonsense this all is.
Conclusion
2.0 heavily implies a superior product that will render the old product 100% irrelevant. However, crypto bros use the term as a marketing ploy to hype up an asset with zero regard to what 2.0 actually means.
There is no Gold 2.0. There is no WEB 4.0. There is no DEFI 2.0.
In fact, I have yet to ever see a solution in crypto that has completely eradicated another inferior technology. That's because crypto itself is a highly inferior inefficient "good enough" solution that barely works. Any time an "upgrade" is invented, many sacrifices were made to get there, meaning the old tech will always be valid in certain circumstances. This seems to be how flat architecture plays out over time. There are no superior products, and none of these products actually compete like the VCs who are peddling them seem to think.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Return from Gold 2.0 vs DEFI 2.0 vs WEB 4.0 to edicted's Web3 Blog
