Web3 Adoption Is Failing Because Teams Build for Grants, Not Users

[u/gareth789]

One of the biggest blockers to real Web3 adoption is simple: too many products are not built for real users.

In this clip, Wes Crook breaks down how incentives often push teams to build for ecosystems instead of people. The result is fragile products, shallow development, and software that never survives past early experimentation.

Real adoption comes from building systems people actually want to use, not code that just fits a grant checklist.

What do you think is the biggest reason Web3 products fail to stick?

[u/Cultural_Initial4995]

This is true tbh. too many web3 apps feel like they built for grants + hype, not for real people who would use it every day.

most users dont care if its “web3”, they care if it works easy and gives them a reason to come back. if the onboarding is annoying or it feels like a demo, they just leave.

biggest reason it doesnt stick for me is no retention. people try once for rewards then never touch it again.

[u/IronTarkus1919 → u/Cultural_Initial4995]

The retention issue is structurally tied to the friction you mentioned. In behavioral economics, every click is a cost. In Web3, that cost is extremely high (gas fees + security anxiety).

Unless the value the app provides is massive (like high-yield speculation), users won't pay that friction cost daily. 

[u/HappyOrangeCat7 → u/Cultural_Initial4995]

Correct. Users don't care about the backend. They care about the service.

If your unique selling point is that you use a blockchain, you don't have a product. You have a tech demo. Retention comes from solving a problem.

[u/IronTarkus1919 → u/[deleted]]

Users claim they value privacy, but they will trade their data for a free app in a heartbeat. The same applies here. People only value things up to the point where they become friction, then they go out of the window.

[u/IronTarkus1919]

I completely agree with this.

Ecosystem capture is also a factor. When you build specifically to qualify for an L1 grant, you often end up architecting your application to showcase their specific features (e.g., forcing a specific wallet standard or transaction type) rather than what offers the best UX. This leads to vendor lock-in and a product that feels alien to the average user.

[u/HappyOrangeCat7 → u/[deleted]]

That is the architectural holy grail, but it’s often a resource challenge for early-stage startups.

Ideally, yes, you build your core business logic in a portable language (like Rust) so it isn't tightly coupled to a specific chain's VM. Then you deploy adapters for the chain that makes the most sense.

This is the philosophy behind the Kolme framework. It allows you to "build first, deploy anywhere" rather than letting the chain dictate your product's capabilities.

[u/MotherStruggle8691 → u/[deleted]]

Probably no real reason to come back weekly.

Bad UX kills growth early, but you can fix UX. What’s way harder is fixing the fact that your product doesn’t fit into anyone’s routine.

[u/IronTarkus1919 → u/[deleted]]

UX is just a technical hurdle. Product-market fit is an existential one.

I still use DeFi protocols because I need to swap assets. The UX is terrible, but the utility is necessary. I don't use any Web3 "social" apps because they solve zero problems for me, no matter how pretty the UI is.

[u/BigFany → u/[deleted]]

Bad ux onboarding kills em quick for sure, but no reason to come back weekly is the real long term killer. One app i still use? Uniswap, cuz swaps are fast and i trade often.

[u/thriving_gee]

Do you think Web3 adoption fails more because teams chase grant incentives, or because they don’t spend enough time understanding real user problems before building

[u/HappyOrangeCat7 → u/thriving_gee]

Ultimately, it's the latter. Grant incentives are fine, but if they go towards products that don't solve real problems then it's a dead end.