Web3 simply explained and why it may (or may not) be the future.
What in the world wide web is “web3”?
You’ve undoubtedly heard the term “web3.” You might have even tried to figure out what it is, only to find a ton of different answers, arguing a ton of different things. Throw in a few other buzzy words like “Metaverse,” “blockchain,” and “NFTs,” and it’s not hard to start getting dizzy.
Frankly, the path only gets twistier from here. But it’s an exciting journey, and hopefully, this article can provide an approachable beginning. First, I’ll provide a simple overview of how web3 is functionally different than the web we use today, and will then share a few arguments for and against web3 to help get some gears turning. (Don’t worry, you can stay tuned for more in-depth articles in the future!)
For now, there’s a lot to unpack regarding web3, so let’s start where most things do: the beginning…all the way back to web1.
The Web Genesis
One of the best ways to understand web3 is first to understand where it came from.
But first, two bits of vocabulary:
- Server: “A server stores, sends, and receives data.” For example, a web server is essentially the thing that sends information to your computer (or the “client’“) whenever you do something on the internet. (There are other types of servers, but you can ignore that for now.)
- Protocol: “A network protocol is a set of established rules that dictate how to format, transmit and receive data so that computer network devices can communicate.” Essentially, it’s the language that the server uses to send data to your computer. Similar to languages, each protocol has a different set of rules and vocabulary needed to effectively communicate between client and server.
Okay, let’s begin!
Web 1: Read.
In 1989, the first iteration of the web was created: Web 1. Described as a “Content Delivery Network,” Web 1.0 was made up of static pages with the primary goal of sharing information. It was mainly built on open source protocols that anyone could look at and build on top of (however, doing so was often difficult or cumbersome, and it meant no one’s protocol was quite the same). Though Web 1.0 democratized access to information, users had to maintain their own server to display their website. Thus, there was basically no navigation, no interactivity, and no connection, meaning the sites were pretty much a one-way street. You get what you get and you don’t get upset. All in all, 3/10.
Pros: Built on a spirit of inclusion! More information for all and open-source protocols for anyone to use
Cons: Pages were boring and static. Required setting up your own server, meaning very little connectivity. No user-generated content (all content was coming from researchers, companies, etc.)
Web 2.0: Read + Write + Share
Web2 emerged in the early 2000s and is the internet we all know and love…or hate (it’s complicated).
In Web 2.0, static pages evolved into communities. Users began actively interacting with each other, adding and creating their own content, and distributing it for all to see. This opened up massive opportunities for creators and small businesses a like. However, to enable this, the open protocols and servers of web1 needed to be centralized so that everyone could operate using the same “language.” Big companies, like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube were happy to provide this…at a price. In exchange for connecting to their servers, these companies collected and maintained ownership of their users’ data and had full control of the service (i.e. Twitter could take down your profile at any time).
Pros: Huge network effects and ability to grow a community fast. More scalability since stronger servers are able to handle more traffic. Quick iteration and clear direction, since updates are led by a single company.
Cons: Controlled by a few big players(Huge payout for a few). Lack of ownership of data and digital profiles. Permission to integrate (i.e. build apps on top of a protocol). Single point of failure, if YouTube goes down, it goes down for everyone.
Web 3.0: Read + Write + Share + OWN
Introducing Web 3.0, where the creation and sharing of content is decentralized. Instead of users connecting to company-owned servers for each website, a network of servers will directly communicate with each other via open-source protocols. This network is decentralized (i.e. no single entity owns or controls them) and will be in constant communication to ensure they are all in agreement on the most up-to-date data. This data is tracked on a blockchain. And the incentive to keep the blockchain up-to-date and correct are tokens, or better known as cryptocurrencies. (As I said, it all get’s much more complicated than this, but hopefully, some lines are being drawn.)
In a sense, web3 combines the open spirit of web1 with the advanced technology and community participation of web2.
Pros: User-owned data and content. Decentralized governance, meaning the masses have a say in what and how things are built. 3rd parties can integrate without permission, encouraging innovation.
Cons: Challenging to scale since the majority needs to agree on changes and growth trajectories. Can be disorganized. Security bugs are difficult to revert. Uses LOTS of energy (although various solutions are being innovated).
What proponents are saying:
1. Web3 gives ownership back to the user and gives them a way to monetize their online activity.
“People sacrificed security for the convenience of these services; whether they knew it or not, their identities, browsing habits, searches, and online shopping information was sold to the highest bidder.”
2. Centralized profits have stifled innovation.
“For 3rd parties, the transition from cooperation to competition feels like a bait-and-switch. Over time, the best entrepreneurs, developers, and investors have learned to not build on top of centralized platforms. This has stifled innovation.” — @cdixon.eth, Partner at a16z
3. Web3 will allow for more democratic governance via DAOs.
DAOs allow “us to design a new form of democracy which is more stable, less prone to erratic behavior, better able to meet the needs of its citizens, and which better uses the expertise of all its citizens to make high-quality decisions.” — Ralph Merkle, Computer scientist, Known as the inventor of cryptographic hashing
4. Interoperability allows a digital identity wherever you go.
“On Web3, your data lives on the blockchain. When you decide to leave a platform, you can take your reputation with you, plugging it into another interface that more clearly aligns with your values.” — Ethereum
What naysayers are saying:
1. It’s just not viable technologically. Decentralized servers are much slower than what a user would require. What’s more, it’s really just a marketing scheme to get people to buy tokens.
“Every single problem proposed to be solved by blockchain hits up against three fundamental technical limitations that inescapably arise from economic or legal concerns.” — Stephen Diehl, software engineer, Web3 is Bullshit
2. While democratic governance sounds good, the general public won’t be invested enough to vote. This will make change and growth both slow and even potentially skewed.
“Most people won’t be interested enough in rule changes or matters of dispute to turn up and vote on them. There’s also the risk that vested interests will prevail to the detriment of the broader ecosystem” — Kevin Roose, Forbes Technology Columnist, What is Web3
3. Ideologically, some things don’t add up…
“The VCs investing in what they call Web3 startups want those small companies to become big companies, all based on the idea that Web3 won’t be controlled by big companies.” — Mike Elgan, Computerworld, You can safely ignore Web3
4. The overall ideals of Web3 and the promises it makes are not something the general public wants. Most people enjoy the benefits of a centralized web, and the services of tech giants, and don’t want to deal with the increased participation and self-monitored security required by Web3.
Hi, I’m Mads!
Thanks for reading! I hope to make topics like this a little less daunting by sharing the need-to-know facts and shedding some light on the various opinions of different players in the market.
If you enjoyed this article or found it helpful, follow along on my journey as I learn about our digital future and share digestible findings along the way.
Until next time,
Mads
P.s. Have a perspective on the article or insight to add? I’d love to hear your input on Twitter! Find me: @madisonmariani_
