The transition from Web2 to Web3 was inevitable. However, as the need for decentralization grows, several important questions about the current state of blockchain technology and its promised “decentralization” are being raised.

History of the Internet | Source: 101 Blockchains

It was Vitalik Buterin entry that “mainly due to limited technical and financial resources. It’s easier to build things lazily and with focus, and it takes serious effort to get it right.” Or Jack Dorsey’s recent tweet explain that it really is the venture capitalists who own the existing network.

Their comments make it clear that popular blockchains are far from realizing their dream of decentralizing with the status quo. So who really owns the future of the internet?

Does Web3 keep what it promises?

Even before Moxie and Jack dubbed Web3 as what it intended to replace, a series of incidents occurred that led many to question the decentralization of the ecosystem. For example, let’s take the case of some legacy Layer 1 sequences. While many chains tout themselves as decentralized, recent events clearly show that the current Layer 1 protocol is not truly decentralized.

For example, Ethereum’s Infura crash in 2020 caused the network to shut down multiple times, eventually leading to an “unexpected” hard fork due to the core development team’s mysterious behavior. Or an ongoing and consistent issue on Solana, or an AWS issue affecting dYdX. If you look closely, you’ll find many cases that raise important questions: are today’s blockchains truly decentralized, or is the capability of these networks still in the hands of a few individuals?

Also, Web2 is currently at the peak of centralization. From data monitoring and censorship of social media platforms to banning users without a valid reason, there is no shortage of issues for Web3 to address. Therefore, it is more important than ever to achieve decentralization in the next version of the web.

However, the future remains uncertain as this commitment seems too big and too difficult to ensure that the next version of the Internet will be run by the users themselves. As chains today increasingly place resource demands on the people involved, most are ineligible due to capital constraints or a lack of skills or motivation to succeed due to the complexity of operating a full node.

Alternate first shifts are only a short-term solution

While chains like Solana, Avalanche, and even Polygon were originally launched as a solution to the high fees of other blockchains, their compromises come at a price. Low fees are great for users, but they have to sacrifice decentralization. Solana Network has seen a reasonable rate of bot activity simply because it’s so cheap.

Fees won’t stay low forever, however. In fact, on networks like Polygon and Avalanche, fees started increasing as demand increased. Users will flock to networks that allow for cheaper transactions. More demand requires the fulfillment of more transactions in the same block space as before. Eventually, users start looking for block space, resulting in increased fees.

Just creating a new Layer 1 that sacrifices decentralization without being able to set long-term fees certainly can’t be the answer.

Thoroughly rethink

Scott Galloway also recently voiced his criticism of Web3. And he was right about some things, particularly regarding the lack of diversity in the industry. Like everyone else, he had no real idea how things could have been done differently. Instead of considering whether people might one day run servers, he simply ignored Moxie’s conclusion that “people will never run their own servers.” Then someone said: Why would anyone use Web3 when you have to pay for everything?

There is no free lunch.

We are used to not paying with real cash. The price we have to pay now is much higher. We pay with our privacy, we pay with limited access to information and the kind of information that certain organizations want us to see. We pay but we are not free.

The economics and industrialization of data Source: Springer Link

I believe for Web3 to be successful we must first consider the costs we are currently incurring and the prices that we can really control.

We will also have to reconsider what counts as a server. Is it true that humans will never run their own servers? Maybe not. Why do we limit ourselves to thinking that servers as we know them today will not change? Will our phones one day be more than just a server?

Let’s reconsider our assumptions and what we think is worthwhile.

Decentralization is a means

While it often seems that the ultimate goal of the blockchain industry is decentralization, decentralization is a means to an end. Only when a network is truly decentralized can it withstand censorship.

When the network is censorship-resistant, information flows freely and anyone can connect and transmit value without boundaries. That’s why it’s such a powerful force. It gives us back the freedom we currently pay to use Web2.

In order for Web3 to provide everyone with empowered and unhindered access, it needs to be decentralized. Decentralization must reach the point where there is no longer a central point of control. Only then will Web3 help unlock human potential and empower freedom.

I believe if we radically rethink our assumptions, question the look of servers, and foster a collaborative environment for true decentralization, Web3 will deliver. We have a better version of the web than we already know.

Join CoinCu Telegram to keep track of news: https://t.me/coincunews

Follow CoinCu Youtube Channel | Follow CoinCu Facebook page