I remember that time, and no, it was nothing like crypto. A better analogy would be electric vehicles today.
Yes, a loose analogy can be made in that there was a hyped technology that some people thought might become huge, others thought might merely become large or medium sized, and most others were pretty unaware or didn't care.
Unlike with crypto, during the late 90s internet/PC/web usage explosion, though, there were decades of successful smaller scale use (BBSes, academic use of the internet, etc). It was just a matter of scaling it up. The future was already here, just unevenly distributed.
Unlike crypto, a lot of the usages were not just emotionally exciting, but actually practical. You could look up a stock quote right away instead of looking at an outdated quote in the paper, or calling a broker on the phone, or having a dedicated fancy service just for that. You could email a friend half way around the world. You could read the full text of a book for free, if it was from before 1923. In general, you could transmit information freely and cheaply across the world -- as long as both recipient and sender were on the internet somehow.
All of those things previously were not possible that easily. There were faxes and landline phones already, but they had their obvious limitations.
Crypto is totally different. It's been hyped for two decades and, except for illegal activities, still hasn't enabled anything that could not be done more efficiently with SQL database to track who owns what, and a system of courts and law enforcement to enforce property rights and enforce contracts.
If you think they are similar you probably don't remember just how different it was to not have a single simple easy way to get and receive information. You had to actually go specific places or talk to specific people. You would do stuff like check movie times in the newspaper, and make specific plans to meet people at specific times.
I still remember when Tell Me came out. It was a phone number interface to some basic internet applications like weather, news, sports, movie times. You called 1-800-TELL-ME and followed the prompts. It was massively popular.
Where is crypto's TellMe moment? Nowhere. The only useful thing I've ever been able to do with crypto is accidentally profit $8000 because I forgot I had owned some I had bought as a joke... which came directly out of someone else's pocket later when it crashed.
If you're looking for a historical analogy, tulipmania is a good one. So is the boom in joint stock companies in the 1600s. So is the plank road boom of the late 1800s.
Nobody had as strong opinions about the internet being a horrifying scam, like many do about crypto. Because it wasn't, and there was no reason to think it was. The main "issue" was, would it catch on? Was it too nerdy? I mean, it's not like now, where the internet is almost slightly cool to some young people. Buying a modem was extremely uncool. And it cost a lot of money. So it was more of a question of "Is it really ready for prime time yet or does it need to become easier to use and cheaper?" much like EVs today. And, again, like EVs today, the problem was solved gradually but exponentially... each succeessive cost decrease or simplicity increase lead to another wave of converts, which made the whole thing more useful, solving the chicken and egg problem gradually
> You could look up a stock quote right away instead of looking at an outdated quote in the paper, or calling a broker on the phone, or having a dedicated fancy service just for that. You could email a friend half way around the world. You could read the full text of a book for free, if it was from before 1923. In general, you could transmit information freely and cheaply across the world -- as long as both recipient and sender were on the internet somehow.
I'm skeptical of crypto as well...but when reading your post about the internet it actually reminded me more of crypto than not.
Although the internet looks revolutionary in retrospect, it may have felt incremental at the time -- because the telephone already existed. Sending an email vs. making a phone call. Driving 30 mins to the library vs. using an internet browser.
What about sending money to a friend in Germany today? Sure, it can be done. But it's going to take several days, involve currency conversions, fees, and likely some phone calls. With crypto they just need to message you an Ethereum address and it's done.
What about sending $20k from one US bank account to another? It still takes 3 days. Isn't the crypto speedup as significant as emailing a friend vs. making a phone call?
Actually, I can Venmo or Paypal people instantly, not in 3 days... and everyone I would want to send money to (people I know IRL in my country, or businesses worldwide who are legally able to sell to me in my country) is able to use it.
You make a fair point in theory, but this kind of superficial thinking is what crypto shills count on (no offense, I see this kind of argument a lot).
Here's the difference: With crypto, that speed comes at a huge and disturbing cost-- the inability to reverse a fraudulent transaction and appeal to the court system to fix other misunderstandings. Sorry, but it turns out that's essential to everyday business, not "silly" friction. There have been many cases demonstrating this by now, not to mention the huge enablement of ransomware, etc.
Crypto is never going to be able to solve that problem because if they do, they stop being crypto, by definition. The friction exists for legal and regulatory reasons. If the legal regime wants to make instant transfers possible, well they can, which is why you can now Venmo or PayPal people instantly. With the right treaties and such, it would be possible internationally too. The technology is there, but the political will isn't.
Crypto gets around needing that, which seems nice, but the cost is too great for anyone but hobbyists, criminals, and speculators. It's no different from a car company being able to undercut all other manufacturers by not including seat belts, air bags, or brakes. Cool proof of concept, but of limited utility except for niche applications like NASCAR.
If I actually need to send money to my friend in Germany, I will use Western Union (or whatever the modern cheaper quicker equivalent is -- a lot of movement in this space lately!). It will be same day, it will cost a small fee, and the small fee will probably be worth it to avoid the risk of scam, theft, and crypto volatility.
Idk about that. Some of the more mass appeal stuff of those days (you can look up stock quotes and movie times, etc blah blah) like I mentioned, was definitely more incremental.
But having access to such huge volumes of information that could not necessarily be found anywhere else was a big deal. You could download a long text file explaining how to hack the phone system. That would not be in any library or bookstore, at any price. Not to mention communities of people. You could discuss things that were very niche, something people take for granted today.
Crypto hasn't done anything qualitatively different like that. It just lets you send money instantly, and with no recourse if you made a mistake or got tricked or your counterparty fails to perform and isn't in your jurisdiction.
PS: Sorry for the double reply, not sure if that's a faux pas, but they were about very different aspects
Whenever someone claims that it took a long time for the internet to find its killer app, I point them to this[1] 1993 ATT ad campaign, where they predict everything from Netflix, IoT, to wearables.
Yes, a loose analogy can be made in that there was a hyped technology that some people thought might become huge, others thought might merely become large or medium sized, and most others were pretty unaware or didn't care.
Unlike with crypto, during the late 90s internet/PC/web usage explosion, though, there were decades of successful smaller scale use (BBSes, academic use of the internet, etc). It was just a matter of scaling it up. The future was already here, just unevenly distributed.
Unlike crypto, a lot of the usages were not just emotionally exciting, but actually practical. You could look up a stock quote right away instead of looking at an outdated quote in the paper, or calling a broker on the phone, or having a dedicated fancy service just for that. You could email a friend half way around the world. You could read the full text of a book for free, if it was from before 1923. In general, you could transmit information freely and cheaply across the world -- as long as both recipient and sender were on the internet somehow.
All of those things previously were not possible that easily. There were faxes and landline phones already, but they had their obvious limitations.
Crypto is totally different. It's been hyped for two decades and, except for illegal activities, still hasn't enabled anything that could not be done more efficiently with SQL database to track who owns what, and a system of courts and law enforcement to enforce property rights and enforce contracts.
If you think they are similar you probably don't remember just how different it was to not have a single simple easy way to get and receive information. You had to actually go specific places or talk to specific people. You would do stuff like check movie times in the newspaper, and make specific plans to meet people at specific times.
I still remember when Tell Me came out. It was a phone number interface to some basic internet applications like weather, news, sports, movie times. You called 1-800-TELL-ME and followed the prompts. It was massively popular.
Where is crypto's TellMe moment? Nowhere. The only useful thing I've ever been able to do with crypto is accidentally profit $8000 because I forgot I had owned some I had bought as a joke... which came directly out of someone else's pocket later when it crashed.
If you're looking for a historical analogy, tulipmania is a good one. So is the boom in joint stock companies in the 1600s. So is the plank road boom of the late 1800s.
Nobody had as strong opinions about the internet being a horrifying scam, like many do about crypto. Because it wasn't, and there was no reason to think it was. The main "issue" was, would it catch on? Was it too nerdy? I mean, it's not like now, where the internet is almost slightly cool to some young people. Buying a modem was extremely uncool. And it cost a lot of money. So it was more of a question of "Is it really ready for prime time yet or does it need to become easier to use and cheaper?" much like EVs today. And, again, like EVs today, the problem was solved gradually but exponentially... each succeessive cost decrease or simplicity increase lead to another wave of converts, which made the whole thing more useful, solving the chicken and egg problem gradually