At its core, Is Web3 a rebranding of crypto and blockchain?

The blockchain lets people create their own money, without permission from any country or bank. It could also, Web 3'ers say, let them build anything on the internet they want without having to rely on existing platforms like Google or Facebook, or tools like Amazon’s AWS cloud computing services. We all know some people will spend a lot of money to stop that from happening.

Blockchain technology is based around a worldwide network of computers that talk to each other and validate and record transactions without human intervention or a centralized oversight, like central banking. Web 3.0 is piggy backing off that concept. 

Blockchain tech has been around in some form for more than a decade, and for much of that time most people who thought about it focused on bitcoin, the digital currency created in 2009 that was most closely associated with blockchain. But you couldn’t really do much with bitcoin except buy or sell it and debate whether it was going up or down. Even after crashing more than 40 percent from its peak, it’s worth around $35,000.

Most coins still are about buying and selling stuff — except now instead of digital currency, you can also buy and sell digital art, or plots of digital land or other items you can earn in a handful of video games. 

It’s entirely possible that Web3 will be an interesting way for people to collect, create and speculate on digital artifacts. That’s potentially meaningful for people who create art and people who like to buy art. 

Transitions from Web1 

Web1, the argument was about getting normal people onto the internet. Helped along first by browsers — and then via internet access and search services like AOL and Yahoo. Web2 was about converting the time people spent on the internet, and all the content they share online, into real businesses, and then consolidating those businesses into massive operations that now seem too big to fail (think Facebook and Google).

But with Web3, the argument goes, the user take's control back from the Facebooks of the world.

How’s that supposed to happen? Well, it’s complicated and for the most part, theoretical. Crucially, the new services could be owned in part by the people who built and use them. That idea, many of Web3’s believers tell me, is the thing that gets them excited. There is the possibility of profit. For starters, many of the folks who are intrigued by Web3 also feel stymied by the current version of the internet, where their ability to create meaningful new companies aimed at consumers — seems capped by the current internet giants, who can buy, build, or crush start-ups.

You might like the fact that Donald Trump lost his social media access a year ago, but you should also be worried that a handful of companies could deplatform the former president of the United States. In a Web3 world, Donald Trump would only get kicked off a social network if the social network’s users — who would be the social network’s owners — wanted that to happen. And even if they did, there would be other platforms on Web3 for Donald Trump — or any other to operate on.

But I think the primary appeal of Web3 comes from the fact that it really doesn’t exist yet. So, in its yet-to-arrive shape, it could be anything. And that sounds great to people longing for something new, whether they’re young techies who’ve only known a world where a handful of giant tech companies dominate the internet, or seasoned folks who remember the initial excitement and possibilities of the early web days.

Always Do Your Own DD.