-
@ Andrew G. Stanton
2025-05-19 02:13:37🧱 Why I Left Web3 for Proof of Work – Part 2: The Breaking Point\ \ It wasn’t a moment. It was a slow-motion unraveling.\ \ By 2024, I was deeply involved in a Web3 project focused on rewarding eco-conscious actions using a token system called “Proof of Environment.” I helped run a related Facebook group aimed at building community and encouraging engagement — especially among refugees and people living on the margins.\ \ I believed in it. I have a lot of respect for the project’s founder. His heart is in the right place.\ \ But reality set in: the token wasn’t trading.\ People were earning rewards that had no liquidity.\ \ So I tried to bridge the gap. I personally subsidized the effort — offering USD to keep people engaged and compensated.\ \ Eventually, I had to stop.\ \ Not because I lost faith in the mission… but because I realized I was compensating for a structural flaw. I was using fiat to prop up what was supposed to be an alternative to fiat.\ \ That realization cracked something open. And it wasn’t just about that project.\ \ By early 2025, I started re-examining the other Web3 spaces I was part of — including a local crypto-faith collective and a civic blockchain group I’d been attending.\ \ Before I say more - I want to be clear:\ \ - I respect the people involved in these communities.\ - I believe their intentions are sincere, and their efforts often come from a genuine desire to help.\ - The speakers were engaging and thought-provoking.\ - This isn’t a judgment of hearts — it’s a reflection on structure, incentives, and what actually works.\ \ One local Web3 community I attended regularly was especially revealing. It was connected to a publishing platform that promised a new way to engage content and community. But in practice, the tech was clunky, and the product was difficult to use — even basic edits to content required small fees in a token that few people understood. One of the DAOs I participated in burned through tens of thousands — mostly on architecture plans and design proposals.\ \ Weekly meetings had free lunches and spiritual talks… but the people experiencing homelessness, who we supposedly served? Often absent — or tokenized for optics.\ \ At one point, I proposed a practical idea to support a local housing initiative. The vision was for residents to grow some of their own food — creating both sustainability and job training opportunities.\ \ The response?\ \ “Let’s do this later.”\ \ It was polite. But it meant no.\ \ Over time, I felt less like a contributor and more like a prop — quietly tolerated, not truly included.\ \ Meanwhile, others held titles, got paid (quietly, maybe — but it was hard to tell how), and kept the stage.\ \ There was always funding for visibility. Rarely funding for outcomes.\ \ The problems people actually faced — hunger, housing, dignity — don’t care about abstractions.\ \ And neither does Bitcoin.\ \ I didn’t leave all at once. I still showed up in March, April, and May — out of habit, curiosity, and maybe hope.\ \ The speakers were thoughtful. In March, someone taught on mindfulness and the “five dimensions of time.” It was peaceful. But to me, it felt like another New Age sidetrack — far from the urgent needs on the ground.\ \ In April, one speaker — a former military interrogator turned AI educator — spoke on an AI “OS” for schools. Another shared how they helped build local currencies in Kenyan villages.\ \ In May, someone presented a trauma-informed housing model for youth with mental illness — one of the few ideas that felt truly grounded.\ \ These were all great ideas — thoughtful, human, often moving.\ \ My only thought was: they might have been better served by starting with Bitcoin — not as an add-on, but as a foundation. Especially the last two.\ \ And again — I believe many of the people involved were sincerely trying to make a difference.\ \ But something had shifted in me.\ \ I couldn’t stop asking: Who actually benefits from this tech?\ \ Does it work — or is it just another talk wrapped in hope?\ \ Why does impact often need a token?\ \ Not all the speakers revolved around Web3 or tokens — but many did.\ \ And quietly, a deeper question emerged: Couldn’t we just do all of this… with Bitcoin?\ \ Without a new platform. Without a fragile token.\ \ Just real tools. Real money. Real proof of work.\ \ The breaking point wasn’t dramatic. It was subtle, quiet — but final.\ \ ✍️ A Personal Note\ \ Even after all this, I still attend some of these events. I still show up — not because I’ve “come back,” but because I care.\ \ Because I respect the people.\ \ Because I believe conviction doesn’t require separation — it just requires clarity. I’m not circling back.\ \ I’m walking forward — with eyes open.\ \ And sometimes that means sitting in the same room with people I no longer fully agree with… and still learning something.\ \ My break wasn’t from the people.\ \ It was from the hype.\ \ From the structure, not the souls.\ \ And I still believe we can build better — if we start with truth.\ \ ⚡ If this resonates, zap me some sats — or just share it forward.\ 🤖 Drafted with the help of ChatGPT, who’s helped me find clarity across tech, theology, and everything in between.