Web3 proponents want to build a decentralized web “where users control their own data, identity and destiny.” In substantial part, blockchain and cryptocurrencies are seen as examples of Web3.
According to its proponents, Web3 should be “open, trustless and permissionless.” It is hard to be against such a notion. People now generally believe open source software is a good thing.
“Trustless” refers to the ability of all participants to interact publicly or privately without a third party gatekeeper.
Permissionless means anyone can participate without authorization from a governing body.
In some part, perhaps a substantial part, the motivation is to avoid huge concentrations of power such as we have seen with the emergence of “hyper” apps including Google, Facebook and Amazon.
It is easy to agree with the sentiment, as it was easy to agree with the sentiment of early internet pioneers that the goal was the ability for any single person to communicate with any other person and share information.
Some might say that vision was utopian. The internet and web now are fragmented behind national firewalls in some countries. Some applications are banned in some countries. And in all countries, a few apps--and firms--tend to dominate all others.
As with the emergence of cryptocurrencies, we already see signs that central financial authorities are moving to gain control over such forms of value or payment.
If Web3 is about ownership, you might see the problem. The impulse to create a system where individuals own their own activity records and data is a reaction to the monetization of human activity on the web. The thinking is that if money is to be made, the creators of that value should be able to do so.
Perhaps non-fungible tokens provide an example, to some extent. Perhaps not. While it is true that NFTs can secure value by preventing unauthorized duplication, personal ownership is not essentially in conflict with the creation of other assets--such as platforms--to scale transactions.
In other words, there is no essential conflict between an artisan creating and selling an object and the creation of marketplaces to make that easier.
No matter what visionaries may wish, powerful interests will seek to create, control and own revenue flows Web3 might produce. And scale matters, after all. The existence of small business does not preclude the existence of “big business.”
The argument is that the new architecture will prevent such control.
We might be skeptical. In some ways, we might liken the sentiment for an open, universal web to the dream of a world without rulers or social and economic classes.
No comments:
Post a Comment