Renaming "Parachains" to a More Generic Term

@tomi I dont think we need to work that hard to explain Web3 Applications and Services.

People are already used to and familiar with Cloud Applications and Services today.

And we can use that to easily have people understand where Polkadot fits in.

First we need to explain to them the difference between Web2 and Web3, which is resilience.

Then you explain that Polkadot is literally a server for any kind of application or service that wants to inherit resilience from Polkadot:

The final thing is to describe to people what kinds of applications and services need Web3 resilience, because we aren’t bringing everything to Web3.

Key parts of an application make the most sense on Web3:

  • identity
  • payments
  • ownership
  • peer-to-peer interactions
  • marketplaces
  • cross-border scenarios
  • community control / incentivization
  • humanitarian needs
  • low trust b2b / b2c scenarios
  • etc…

And that you can build applications and services which use a mixture of Web2 and Web3, providing the best of both worlds.

Yes, we should have been doing and incentivizing this for a long time.

  • Powered by Polkadot
    • When they use the SDK or tech stack, or in general
  • Secured by Polkadot
    • When they are an application or service
  • Funded by Polkadot
    • When they are receiving treasury support

I think we could build a system which both helps us keep a good ecosystem map, while encouraging teams to include such a banner: [Request] Decentralized Ecosystem Map · Issue #3 · polkadot-developers/bounties · GitHub

7 Likes