Reputation in Web3: Ships Built on the Great Flood

Right now, and for the foreseeable future, follower graphs on centralized social networks are a source of significant and enduring value. We see in every dimension of our society how efficiently that influence can be translated into financial, political and cultural gain. So to ask our question another way: Will there be a time when most users’ on-... See more

3) Yes -- over time, all of the key aspects of Web 2.0, including centralized social networks, will be replaced by web 3-style user-owned and governed protocols.

2) Sort of -- key aspects of Web 2.0 will be better performed by Web 3 systems and there will be a symbiotic relationship between two parallel but similarly powerful models.

1) No -- Web3 is best understood as a sort of ‘economic’ extension of Web 2.0,

If it’s better for more people, will Web3 replace Web 2.0? Why wouldn’t it? There are three possible answers:

New models of work and collaboration: The business models of Web3 encourage collaboration. In Web2, all revenue streams reward the action of the output (advertising against what’s already published, subscribing to a finished piece of work). In Web3, there’s now a business model on the input. Crowdfunding and social tokens are an investment in the i... See more

Governance, individual influence and moderation: As we discussed in previous articles, ownership is less about financial upside and more about social influence. In Web3, the individual is now influential within the organization it holds tokens of, giving s/he the ability to drive decision making that will bring better health and effectiveness to th... See more

Platform wealth and economic sharing: Today, creators & consumers contribute to a platform to gain social or economic status. But this status is rented (status on platform only, revenue shared directly with platform). In Web3 this status is owned. Not only is social reputation portable, but the relationship with IP created on platform can be owned ... See more

As Web 2.0 companies began to deeply understand the powerful potential of their innovations — the game-ish reaction buttons, the follower graph, the algorithmic ‘newsfeed’ — they became adept at a clever stratagem. Rather than committing to perpetual openness, they could offer new user tools or developer APIs and encourage the community to use them... See more

These successful companies in most cases weren’t true platforms, but aggregators, locking in demand and exerting central control.