What do observers believe “decentralization” actually means when talking about Web 3.0? What is sought is an internet not dominated by a handful of large app providers. But many--perhaps most--features said to be characteristic of Web 3.0 arguably are not foundational changes.
Some might say Web 1.0 was “read only,” whereas Web 2.0 was “read-write.” In that sense, Web 3.0 is “more write,” albeit with a significant chance that reach or influence might not change all that much. Think of the notion of “everyone may speak” and how that is different from “who has something to say?”
In other words, unlimited ability to post does not mean unlimited ability to “get attention.” Large platforms tend to make a difference in that regard. So the issue is whether the “creating an audience” function can be supplied in decentralized fashion or not, without the mediation of a platform.
The corollary is whether an effective platform can exist without ownership. There is a difference between “using a mechanism” and “owning a mechanism.” Many argue Web 3.0 alters “ownership rights and mechanisms.” at scale.
If one analogy is content creation, then Web 3.0 promises a way for content creators to monetize in a more-direct way. But popular content never has surfaced and propagated without the use of platforms that curate content. Whether that changes because of distributed security and payment mechanisms is not so clear.
The issue is whether decentralized curation can scale.
That might not wind up being the case. Even when individuals have more control or ownership over their data, value might be created by platforms that allow the “most valuable” data to propagate. And that is precisely what Web 3.0 proponents seem to oppose: the creation of large intermediaries and platforms.
As envisioned, Web 3.0 would operate more like a peer-to-peer network, with computing resources scattered widely and without gatekeepers.
To be sure, some foundational “distributed” features are seen” blockchain; crypto currency assets and public key security. Some also see the ability to develop apps without much--if any--coding knowledge.
Some applications could--or should--include banking, presumably the ability to conduct transactions more directly, without “middlemen” such as financial institutions. That would be a classic example of “disintermediation,” by definition the removal of distributors from value chains.
Other applications do not seem intrinsically related to Web 3.0 “decentralization,” though. Use of augmented reality sometimes is said to be an attribute of Web 3.0, but that is likely to happen in any case.
Some might argue that the use of “digital twins” is a Web 3.0 development, but others would argue that will happen anyhow, and is not intrinsically produced only by Web 3.0.
The same might be said of artificial intelligence, cloud or edge computing and big data. Sometimes cited as examples of Web 3.0 experience. Obviously, the countervailing notion is that those developments already are coming, but not necessarily requiring a new internet architecture.
The use of peer-to-peer transactions, which blockchain will help facilitate, seems among the few concrete examples of how Web 3.0 would operate, in terms of value exchanges.
The point is that we cannot yet say how different any Web 3.0 might be. Experientially, the low-bandwidth, character-based internet offered a vastly different experience than the image, video and sound-based Web, able to support robust e-commerce features.
As the Web evolves to incorporate artificial intelligence, virtual and augmented reality, it is possible, though not inevitable, that platforms could be substantially eliminated, at least for some operations, such as payments.
Still, it seems a bigger stretch to argue that large and dominant platforms will be eliminated by distributed transactions, for example. The value of marketplaces (platforms) is precisely the richness and density of potential buyers and sellers. Whether the relatively frictionless experience provided by a large marketplace can be replicated in some decentralized way is the issue.
Easier to predict is the growth of “trust” mechanisms that will protect buyers and sellers from fraud, as that is a primary attribute of blockchain mechanisms.
No comments:
Post a Comment