Web3 Was Supposed To Save the Internet
it has a long way to go.
8 minEarly this year when anything still seemed possible for technology companies, futurists and venture capitalists were enthralled with the idea of building a new internet. Web3, as it became known, was poised to recapture the 1990s promise of a decentralized internet, free from gatekeepers and trillion-dollar platforms.
Cryptocurrencies had the starring role in the Web3 dream. Crypto, in theory, could wrest control from giants like Meta Platforms (ticker: FB), Alphabet (GOOGL), Amazon.com (AMZN), and Apple (AAPL). It would shift our online activities to blockchains—handling everything from payments and trading to videogaming, social media, even real estate. It could also shift the economics to users, giving them financial incentives to govern and secure the networks.
A record $25 billion was plowed into crypto start-ups last year, with another $30 billion on track for this year, according to Bank of America. Even the recent downturn in crypto doesn’t seem to have chilled new investment. This past week, venture-capital firm a16z announced a new crypto fund totaling $4.5 billion.
“We think we are now entering the golden era of web3,” a16z partner Chris Dixon wrote in announcing the investment.
And yet Web3 remains a heavy lift—it’s full of contradictions, glitchy technology, regulatory uncertainty, and competing economic interests. There’s debate over who will “own” it—companies backed by Silicon Valley venture capital, or the users themselves. And the crypto markets’ downturn—wiping out more than $1 trillion in value for tokens this year—makes a blockchain-based web even harder to fathom.
In the near term, Web3 may be a casualty of a tech backlash that has sent the Nasdaq Composite index down more than 25% this year. Crypto-related stocks have tanked, including Coinbase Global (COIN) and Microstrategy (MSTR), and payment apps Block (SQ) and PayPal Holdings (PYPL). Among crypto start-ups, investment is harder to come by, and valuations are falling. Morgan Stanley forecasts that failure rates will rise.
Crypto fans talking up Web3 as a revolution face pushback from critics who see it as a marketing gimmick. In the end, Web3 is likely to fall somewhere in between.
“We may have to go through one or two hype cycles before the most important elements of the technology break through,” says Gavin Wood, a co-founder of the Ethereum blockchain and head of another blockchain enterprise called Polkadot. As he sees it, Web3 today is where the internet was in 1998—early in its adoption but with vast potential and boom-bust cycles ahead.
“Web3 is the next generation of the internet with capabilities that go well beyond what we have today,” says Mark Palmer, a digital-asset analyst at brokerage BTIG. “But the citizenry is not rising up to overthrow Web2.”
Understanding Web3 requires a dip in the hot-tub time machine. Web1, the first generation from the 1990s, was based on static pages and directories that served as the first internet indexes. Web1’s dial-up services, browsers, and banner ads evolved into the more modern internet, which came to be known as Web2. Companies like Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, Apple, and Microsoft (MSFT) now oversee the core of our web experiences. Walled gardens like Instagram, YouTube, and Apple’s App Store prevail. Digital assets like videogame avatars and social-media followings sit on platforms owned by the giants.
In some ways, Web3 aims to turn back the clock, cutting out the intermediaries and dispersing apps, services, and digital assets on decentralized networks like Ethereum and other blockchains. Today, those networks are primarily used for trading and lending crypto assets, including new varieties like nonfungible tokens, or NFTs, and stablecoins, which are designed to maintain a fixed value.
But all sorts of other financial products and services could live on blockchains, potentially reducing the economic friction now associated with cross-border payments and transaction fees for goods and services. “Blockchains have the potential to clear and settle transactions in a much more efficient way than traditional technology,” says Sarah Hammer, an adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who specializes in crypto.
One example of Web3 already in practice is Filecoin, a crypto-powered storage network. Rather than storing files on cloud-based servers—where they are ultimately controlled by a handful of big-tech operators—they can be distributed and encrypted on personal hard drives with spare capacity. Testimonies of Holocaust and other genocide survivors are being preserved through Filecoin.
“It’s like Airbnb for file storage,” says Marta Belcher, president and chair of the Filecoin Foundation. “If you have extra space on your hard drive, you can rent it out. We think of it as the foundation for the next generation of the internet.”
Filecoin may just scratch the surface of decentralized technologies. Projects like Helium aim to challenge telecom networks by distributing long-range Wi-Fi hot spots to individuals, giving financial incentives and payments for data traffic in tokens. NFTs allow for property rights, licensing agreements, and royalties to be traced and tracked. That opens up avenues for NFTs to become conduits for things like mortgages, car ownership titles, diplomas, and concert tickets. “There’s an infinite number of things you can do with a computer, and that’s equivalent to what you can do with an NFT,” says Gui Karyo, chief information officer of Dapper Labs, a leading NFT company.
Ideally, Web3 advocates say, the technology will lay the foundations for a more egalitarian web where the “rents” now charged by intermediaries will be more widely distributed. “We should be moving to an internet where your digital property rights are genuine—you’re not a serf on Jack Dorsey’s or Mark Zuckerberg’s plantation; you own your homestead,” says Nic Carter, a venture-capital investor in Web3 start-ups at Castle Island Ventures.
Silicon Valley’s biggest and most successful venture-capital firms are investing heavily. “Programmable blockchains are sufficiently advanced, and a diverse range of apps have reached tens of millions of users,” a16z’s Dixon said in a post this past week. Tokens also give users “property rights: the ability to own a piece of the internet,” he said in an previous post on Web3.
Web3 overlaps with the metaverse, another of tech’s hottest topics before the recent selloff. The metaverse foresees a new internet based on virtual realities, online avatars, and new ways for people to socialize and work.
Facebook rebranded itself as Meta Platforms, betting that its Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp could become Web2 relics without help from blockchains, cryptos, and NFTs, which could grant consumers more control of their digital lives. Meta is now working on incorporating NFTs into Instagram. The currencies of digital worlds, whether for gaming, social, or e-commerce, are likely to be stablecoins—digital tokens aimed at holding a peg to a dollar.
Yet Facebook’s move is a reminder that the Web2 giants aren’t sitting still. In the end, Web3 is unlikely to displace them. Indeed, there’s good reason to think Web3 won’t be all that decentralized. For one, it’s being funded by many of the same entities that built Web2.
A16z, formally called Andreessen Horowitz, was an early investor in many Web2 stalwarts, including Facebook, Box, Lyft, and Pinterest.
Now, the firm owns stakes in dozens of crypto start-ups, including OpenSea and Dapper Labs, along with decentralized-finance, or DeFi, platforms including Ava Labs, Uniswap Labs, dYdX, and Compound. These DeFi platforms consist of “smart contracts” that set the conditions of a trade, cutting out intermediaries like a brokerage or centralized exchange.
VC firms aren’t making investments based on sheer goodwill. They expect returns on capital and are likely to maintain stakes through token ownership or warrants. The platforms themselves may be decentralized, in the sense that anyone with some technical skills can write a “permissionless” smart contract and execute a trade without a broker/dealer. But that doesn’t mean the platform isn’t owned or governed by a corporate entity.
That rubs some tech gurus the wrong way. Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey stirred up an online frenzy last December when he tweeted, “You don’t own ‘web3.’ The VCs and their LPs do,” referring to venture-capital firms and their investors known as limited partners. “It’s ultimately a centralized entity with a different label.”
Representatives for Dorsey and a16z declined to comment.
Crypto is proving enticing to VC firms partly because of the attractive “tokenomics.” For a traditional VC deal, the path from initial funding to exit usually takes five to seven years. In crypto, that timeline can be compressed to just two years, with VCs exiting their investment when a token goes live on an exchange or takes off on a DeFi platform.
“You have a very short time to liquidity—often it’s like 24 months—so even if the business doesn’t pan out, you can still exit,” says Carter. “That’s why crypto is so popular with VCs; even your losers can get liquidity, and you can exit before a product comes out.”
The nebulous nature of Web3 is also alluring for early backers. “There’s no definition, and that’s deliberate,” says Carter, who backs crypto start-ups. “If something is poorly defined, as an entrepreneur you can claim you’re building it even if you’re not. The lack of codification works to the benefit of people in the industry.”
The spoils of the crypto boom may already be accruing to the founders and early backers, leaving later entrants holding the bag. That’s apparent in the many projects that shut down or fizzle after their tokens go live on an exchange. The most public failure happened this month when an “algorithmic” stablecoin, TerraUSD, and a related token called LUNA collapsed, wiping out $40 billion dollars in value. Terra’s problems heighten concerns that crypto markets remain packed with dodgy projects and speculative excesses.
The potential windfall for VC firms doesn’t change the main argument from Web3 proponents, which is that blockchains can democratize networks, both economically and through their governance. Two blockchain innovations are making that possible.
Major blockchain networks like Ethereum that would form the basis for Web3 run on a system of processing transactions called “proof of stake.” Anyone who owns a blockchain’s native tokens can pledge or delegate them to the network operators that process and secure the blockchain’s transactions. In return, those stakeholders receive a cut of the transaction fees. The idea is to disperse ownership and let anyone participate in a network’s economics and growth, similar to owning shares of a software company that runs a widely used operating system. Proof of stake consumes far less electricity than first-generation blockchains like Bitcoin. They’re known as “proof of work,” because the network requires a massive amount of computing power to secure and process transactions.
Blockchains can also be democratized through decentralized autonomous organizations, or DAOs, which grant token owners a vote on how to assess transaction fees or to invest the group’s assets (one DAO tried unsuccessfully last year to buy a rare copy of the U.S. Constitution).
Here again, though, the financial interests complicate matters. Founders and early investors tend to control most of the tokens and oversee the DAO, similar to how a start-up’s equity is concentrated in a small group of investors before it goes public.
Some software engineers view Web3 as a step back from the original idea of Bitcoin—a peer-to-peer payment network operated by individuals worldwide. “The things calling themselves DAOs are often neither decentralized nor autonomous—the founders call all the shots,” says Molly White, a software engineer and author of a critical blog, Web3 Is Going Just Great. “This idea that Web3 will be egalitarian, with no one controlling the wealth, is an enormous contradiction.”
The web’s incumbents are far more likely to incorporate Web3 than sit by while the technology renders them obsolete. “It doesn’t seem like Amazon faces any meaningful Web3 threats right now,” said Ryan Selkis, CEO of crypto data firm Messari, in a recent report. “Google search and Microsoft Office may have impregnable walls,” he added. Apple is still dominant in hardware, first and foremost.”
Legally, Web3 is unsettling. Governments aren’t eager to allow financial products and services to shift from regulated brokerages, exchanges, and banks onto DeFi networks. Some legal scholars argue that DeFi is “Shadow Banking 2.0,” a high-tech version of the loosely regulated securities and other products that led to the financial collapse of 2008-09. “DeFi doesn’t so much disintermediate finance as replace trust in regulated banks with trust in new intermediaries who are often unidentified and unregulated,” said Hilary Allen, a law professor at American University, in a recent paper.
Bitcoiners espouse libertarian economics, yet Web3 has Marxist ideas of collective ownership and distributed profits, according to some views.
That’s not to say that Web3 is all decentralisation theatre, manifestos, and speculation. The idea that an online bookstore would transform into a cloud giant wasn’t apparent when Amazon first issued stock in 1997; Facebook didn’t exist back then, and TikTok was associated with a clock. Coders are working hard to build Web3, and the capital flowing in will support lots more apps, services, and development.
But it does face a Catch-22; without corporate and legal wrappers, Web3 is unlikely to attract institutions and individuals en masse. Companies will get involved for the profits. That means the hope for a flat web topography could keep drifting away.
The most likely impact is that the promise of a potential Web3 brings us something more like Web2.5, in which the web’s current landlords face pressure to lower rents and open up their walled gardens. In the end, that may motivate everyone to stick with the comforts of the internet we have today.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan
Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.
We’re thinking about productivity at work all wrong, Cal Newport says. But how do we tell the boss that?
4 min
You’re oh so busy. You’re on Slack and email and back-to-back Zoom calls , sometimes all at once . Are you actually getting real work done?
Cal Newport doesn’t think so.
“It’s like, wait a second, none of this mattered,” says the Georgetown University computer science professor and crusader for focus in a distracted age.
Newport, 41, says we can accomplish more by shedding the overload. He calls his solution “slow productivity”—and has a book by the same name —a way for high achievers to say yes to fewer things, do them better and even slack off in strategic doses. Top-notch quality is the goal, and frenetic activity the enemy.
This, he told me, is the thing that can save our jobs from AI and layoffs, and even make shareholders happy.
I had questions. Can we really be less is more at work, or have we grown addicted to constantly crossing endless tasks off our to-do lists? What will our bosses think?
After all, so many of us yearn for a burnout cure-all that will preserve our high-achiever status, and this isn’t the first you-can-have-it-all proposition we’ve heard. Champions of the four-day workweek promise we can ditch an entire workday just by working smarter. Remote-work die-hards swear it’s a win for employers and employees. Few dreams are more seductive than bidding goodbye to hustle culture, while still reaping the benefits of said hustle.
Newport acknowledges that saying no to preserve our productivity can be a delicate act. He knows that entrepreneurs have more flexibility, but says those of us who answer to managers can carve this out too. We might even find we have more power and value to our employers.
“You should take that value out for a little bit of a spin,” he suggests. He offers some pointers.
Less is more
The way we work now is a “serious economic drag,” Newport says. Knowledge workers have devolved into a form of productivity that’s more about the vibes—stressed!—than actually making money for the company. Data from Microsoft finds that lots of us spend the equivalent of two workdays a week on meetings and email alone.
One mistake we make, Newport says, is taking on too many projects, then getting bogged down in the administrative overload—talking about the work, coordinating with others—that each requires. Work becomes a string of planning meetings, waiting on someone from another department to give us a go-ahead.
Newport recommends giving priority to a couple projects, then bumping the others to a waiting list in order of importance. Make that list public, say, in a Google doc you share with bosses and colleagues.
“When workloads are obfuscated behind black boxes, it’s just people throwing stuff at each other, it’s very dangerous to say no,” Newport says.
If someone comes to you with more work, have them consider where it should go on your list, Newport says.
When you do say yes, double the estimated timelines you set to complete a project. That’s how long it’ll take to do it well, he says. And try what he calls a “one for you, one for me strategy.” Every time you book an hour-long meeting, block an hour for independent work on your calendar.
Be the one to trust
It’s a foreign and bracing approach for those of us who reflexively say yes to work requests. Newport’s philosophy requires transparency and confidence. Instead of “let me see how fast I can turn that around!”, try, “This request will take six hours. I’ll have that time in three weeks.”
This could be heresy at some companies. The trick is in the delivery, he says. Never make it seem like work tasks are a burden you shouldn’t have to face. Instead, stress that you’re trying to be as effective as you can for the team and the company. Be positive, and deliver on the timelines you promise. You’ll be seen as someone who’s organised and on top of your game.
We think bosses want someone who’s always accessible—fast to respond, fast to jump into action, Newport says. But what bosses really want is to know that a project they hand you will get done.
Bite-size shirking
Quiet quitting permanently is a bad idea, Newport says, but a little bit is good.
Don’t feel guilty, he adds. You’re working under a new, better system. We weren’t meant to work all out , every day, without seasonal shifts and pauses.
Pick a time—say, the month of July—to slow down. Don’t volunteer for extra work. Don’t offer Mondays as a possibility for meetings. Take on an easier project for cover.
He also recommends taking yourself out to a monthly movie during the workday. Say it’s a personal appointment, and enjoy the sense of control and creativity it brings.
You don’t have to nail a manifesto to the wall, he adds, or try to change the whole company culture. Instead, quietly carve out change for yourself.
Coming into your power
The catch: You have to be really good at the part of your job that matters. And you have to get big stuff done. Remember, this is about being a happier high performer, not slacking.
“There’s no hiding,” Newport says.
I suspect this terrifies a lot of people. They’ve gotten good at being always on and typing up yet another meeting agenda. Tackling a major project or goal is often harder, and comes without a guarantee that you’re going to nail it.
Scary or not, real work is becoming imperative. AI is coming for the rote parts of our jobs. Leaders are sussing out the “nonsense” projects and roles in their ranks as they cut jobs, Newport says. No boss wants to be left with a team of people who are aces at responding to emails.
Mastering a valuable skill puts you in control. Newport writes of people who leave corporate America behind and move where they want , working remotely as contractors, charging wild fees for fewer hours of work. The more you shed the work that doesn’t matter, and spend that time getting better at the stuff that does, the more leeway you’ll get.
“The marketplace doesn’t care about your personal interest in slowing down,” Newport writes. “If you want more control over your schedule, you need something to offer in return.”
Figure that puzzle out, and you might just be able to have it all—high achievement, and your sanity.
This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan
Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.
