Earn while running: Running into Web3.0?

First of all, I want to cheer up my friends in Shanghai. We’re as frustrated as everyone these days, the only difference is that we’re not starving. Although when this episode was launched, I hoped that the situation had improved; but at the moment, I can only say: If you don’t know what to believe, then believe in time – time will heal everything.

Today, I will help you to divert your attention and discuss a slightly lighter topic: “Sports + Money + Web3”. The phenomenon represented by today’s topic is a good example of “Wall-Type Dissipation Theory: Meme + Structure”. Xiao Pao and Wang Wei (Will) made a case analysis of StepN, a new thing. (The content discussed in this program has nothing to do with specific projects and does not represent any investment advice)

Outline of this issue ·

1. The experience of testing StepN: the huge difference between running maniacs and traders

2. Analyzing the “meme” and “structure” of StepN using “Well-type dissipation theory” – is it a “sustainable Ponzi structure”?

3. What is a “double meme”? ‘Sports’ and ‘Making Money’: Which one is the lasting ‘strong meme’?

4. What is “Positive and Negative Feedback Balanced Structure”?

5. The necessity of “cost exposure” in the field of Web 3.0

6. Is StepN a Web3 product or a Web2 product that incorporates the token economic model?

· Extended reading in this issue · 

  1.  The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore

     

  2. “Strava Art”: “GPS Doodle” created with exercise routes. The artist first designs a route, then rides the bike, and then uploads the motion trajectory to Strava—a piece of “movement performance art” appears. (Website: https://gpsdoodles.com/ )

     

· Transcript · 

Xiao Pao (02:41): Today, I want to help you divert your attention and discuss a lighter topic – exercise and making money.

The phenomenon represented by today’s topic is actually the dissipation theory discussed in the previous episode, that is, the use of dissipation theory—”meme” plus “structure” to analyze the Ponzi structure —an extension of this topic and case studies.

First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Will, what are your exercise habits?

Will (04:38): There are also exercise habits. It used to be a variety of ball sports, but now the working hours are long, and there are basically only standard fitness in the gym, treadmills, strength training and so on. Besides, he is usually a typical otaku.

Xiao Pao (05:20): I am a person who runs every day. I started before college. Basically, I run about 5~7 kilometers every day. But I don’t like to record, such as using apps that record steps and sports data; I also don’t like posting “results” in the circle of friends. In addition to “shoes drying”, because my running shoes are particularly expensive, they are damaged at an average rate of two pairs per year, so every time I die, I will commemorate them in the circle of friends.

I learned about StepN a while ago, and I was very curious, so I started using it with a research attitude. The more I use it, the more I feel that the phenomenon it represents is not something that can be summarized by a sports app or a Web3.0 product; I soon felt that it was the dissipation theory, “meme” and “structure” we discussed. A good case for analyzing Ponzi structures.

Has Mr. Will ever used this app?

Will (07:03): I haven’t yet, but many young girls and boys in my colleagues have used it, and some may have started using it before this project became popular. I didn’t use it myself for a very simple reason – I’m all working out in the gym now, and StepN can’t remember steps indoors and has to be outdoors, so I’ll ignore it for now.

In fact, many of our colleagues are also like this. Although we also go to the gym to exercise, but for StepN, we have to go outside for a few minutes every day.

Xiao Pao (07:50): I’ve been using it for weeks. At first I was fascinated, but then I got more ideas.

First, I will take a few minutes to introduce its game rules and some feelings I use; then ask Mr. Will to analyze whether it is a sustainable “Ponzi structure” from the perspective of “meme” and “structure”?

It is estimated that many friends have not heard of this product. It is actually an APP, similar to Keep, Strava, etc., that will record your running route and kilometers. But what is special about it is that the amount of running every day can be converted into tokens, and its tokens can make money.

This model is a very popular concept in the field of Web3.0 and encryption, or it is called a business model – “x to earn”, that is, “earning while X”. For example, “play to earn” means earning while playing, and StepN is a type of “running and earning”. Now on the market, it is considered a product that breaks the circle, because it attracts many people who are not in the encryption circle, such as running enthusiasts to enter the world of Web3.0.

I’d like to start by mentioning how I noticed it – it’s still important, it means how you were “pulled”. I heard this name a long time ago, but I really started to pay attention to Bloomberg’s news side. One day, a pop-up window popped up at work, saying that a token called GMT had skyrocketed in price (GMT is the governance token of the StepN project) , from more than a cent of dollars, all the way up to a maximum of more than two dollars.

I remember a Bloomberg reporter just tweeting and asking why? Someone below replied: Because people on earth suddenly want a pair of “Metaverse running shoes”. I thought it was very interesting. I immediately read the white paper of this project and felt that I would simply experience it myself to see what this phenomenon is.

In fact, the factors that made me pay attention to it are actually quite in line with the law of “pulling new people” or gaining attention in the crypto world so far – most people notice it, and it always starts from “price surge”. Or “price skyrocket” is always the best hype.

So I started working on it. In order to compare different groups of people and get an objective point of view, I invited a friend to experience it with me.

My friend and I are completely different people. I am a long-term runner, running is a part of life, there may be some “social factors”, such as wanting to keep in shape, but it is more of a habit.

The friend is a senior trading ape and a moderate gamer. There are two types of traders in the world, one is the “direction bet” and the other is the “arbitrager”, such as a market maker. He is an arbitrage trader who likes to compare prices in different markets. He is commonly known as “looking for a free lunch” (to take advantage of it). His arbitrage intuition is outrageous.

The two of us started to experience at the same time, and then there was a huge difference in the driving force and use method.

To start the game, first buy a pair of virtual running shoes. At that time, the cheapest price was about 8~9 Sol (Solana tokens), which means that the admission fee was about 8,000 Hong Kong dollars. Running shoes only have a certain amount of energy every day. If you have a pair of shoes, your daily energy is only enough to run for about 10 minutes. That is to say, you can make money only during these ten minutes of energy. Of course you can buy more shoes, run for more than an hour, and probably own at least 30 pairs of shoes.

After the energy is used up, if you want to continue running, you can only wear your shoes and make no money; shoes need daily maintenance, and maintenance costs money, otherwise the greater the degree of wear and tear, the less you will earn from running. For example, if I have a pair of shoes, I run for 10 minutes every day, then stop and close the app before continuing to run; I earn about 6 GST (the token used in the StepN app) every day, and spend about half of it on repairing the shoes.

There are many other game rules. For example, your shoes can have “small shoes”, can be upgraded, can open blind boxes, etc.; but there are costs – for example, you need to pay for upgrades, and you need to wait.

After about two weeks, an interesting difference started to appear in the directions of my friend and I:

For me, I run every day anyway. One day, the “running” thing suddenly has “value” and becomes something that can make money. Seven kilometers a day is too wasteful. I also thought about it, if I lose my job today and have no source of income, I earn about 160 Hong Kong dollars in GST every day by running, which can be exchanged for USDC at the cryptocurrency ATM in Causeway Bay, and maybe enough to eat every day.

So my motivation is: no use, no pressure, no loss.

My friend, on the other hand, was an arbitrageur with StepN. He spends a lot of time every day studying the various arbitrage spaces in the StepN rules – such as the daily price changes of GST (the token used in the APP), GMT (governance token) and SOL (Solana token). , to determine the strategy that will earn the most value. For example, now that the price of SOL is lower, he will continue to run, try to earn more GST and then exchange it for USDC, and then use USDC to buy SOL – which is equivalent to synthesizing a cross arbitrage. But if the GMT price is higher, he will level up faster, because the higher the level, the more GMT he may earn. He also made his own pricing model to find endogenous prices for GMT and GST.

So his motivation is: no matter running or dancing, what can make money and arbitrage is a good sport.

But our conclusion is the same: if there is no money to make one day, it may not play. It seems that we all run for the purpose of making money.

Will (17:44): Two kinds of users came out and introduced a typical role in this ecological environment – arbitrageurs, who study to get the most value, and even have a sense of challenging or even “attacking” the economy. interesting. I want to analyze it from my point of view.

When we talked about the concept of dissipative structure – meme and structure before, we analyzed why DeFi projects can grow so fast, or have such great benefits?

I think the StepN project is indeed very typical. Whether it is called Web3.0 or an encryption project, there are actually relatively good designs at the two levels of “meme” and “structure”. Let’s start with “memes”. Projects like StepN are, I think, a better meme model.

I briefly summed up a concept called “Dual Memetic Mechanism” . The last time we talked about memes, I didn’t actually say exactly what a “meme” was. Talking about the example of Turkey, it is pointless to discuss Erdogan’s “pure structural” adjustment of “multiplying deposits by 2” to stabilize the value of the lira; he joked at the time that there must be a “great rejuvenation of the Turkish nation”. A call to class – a legitimate meme to entice people to stay in the Turkish ecosystem.

In fact, a “meme” is indeed a kind of “idea” that people can recognize. In reality, there are many memes. For example, the citizens of a country, “the great rejuvenation of the nation” is a meme; “Chinese stomach” is actually a meme, which determines that you actually want to live on the land of China, and you don’t want to go there. foreign. This perception is actually a meme.

It’s normal to have at least one meme for a project. If you don’t have any memes, others will not be able to “recognize” your project.

But a meme alone may not be enough. A typical feature of previous DeFi projects, such as the Olympus DAO discussed last time, is that the memes are relatively “simple”. What we can see is “making money”, and Olympus DAO also introduced Nash equilibrium for this, telling you that you can make more money by “not throwing”, and everyone will be finished if you throw it. But it will always revolve only around “making money” or “losing money” — of course, making money and losing money is clearly a powerful meme, that’s the unquestionable fact.

So the vast majority of DeFi projects and encryption projects probably only revolve around the meme of making money. But this is a bit too simple, and it is easy to fall into the situation of “fast growth and collapse”. When it grows, it is very fast because of the money-making effect. Once the money-making effect is gone, it collapses very quickly – because there is no other meme to support it.

The ideal situation is of course that the memes are very rich. If you have 168 memes, Sun Wukong will not be able to escape from your palm. But there are often only three things a person can perceive at the same time—more than that, it’s hard to understand.

So I think for a good project, maybe 2 or 3 memes, that’s probably the sweet spot. One is too little, four is too much. There are at least two memes for projects like StepN: The first, and most important, is still making money. I feel it is important at least in the initial stages of any project.

We talked last time, if you are a trot platform, it is subsidized, cheap, or can make money at the beginning; but you will soon find that it is difficult to support it for a long time, and you must come up with “another thing”. What is “the other thing”? I think it should be another typical human psychology, which is “a continuation of what already exists”.

You mentioned this mentality just now: running every day anyway, and not paying more to use it. You can also make some money with it. Everyone will have this way of thinking – I must do one thing anyway, if I don’t pay more for it, I will be relieved, I will be willing to participate, and there will be less resistance to participating in this matter.

This falls into another concept we’ve discussed – what I call “safety”. “Safety” is actually a very powerful meme that makes you feel like you can’t get hurt or hurt by getting into something.

I think that’s what most StepN users think – I’m going to run anyway, and I haven’t spent much time on it. If you spend too much time or energy on it, you will feel insecure because time and energy are known to be precious. StepN does it better, it captures an important point of the meme, so you don’t have to “pay extra”.

Are there many more things with this meme?

In fact, in the “ICO era” in 2018, a large number of projects were also on this road at that time. The stories they tell are often the introduction of blockchain into a certain industry. Almost all industries can be called “blockchain+”, or “+blockchain”, no matter the catering industry or the clothing industry.

In fact, “using the blockchain to improve an industry” – this meme is actually relatively weak. But if you convert it to: In this industry, or in the daily field, no extra effort is required, but I can superimpose a possibility of making money for you, and the two memes can be effectively connected.

The design of this kind of meme is actually inherent in most of the current Web3.0 or crypto projects, but everyone may not actively design from the perspective of “meme stacking”, and the effect is not very good.

And StepN is obviously a good project that can superimpose these two concepts after several iterations. Of course, this is also because it sees the direction of “sports” – because “sports” is naturally in line with the cognition of “no extra effort”.So, do “meme stacking”, or “dual meme” — I think that’s very important for a project.

Xiao Pao (26:24): After listening to Mr. Will’s explanation, my impression of science students has changed a bit. I used to think that “creating new concepts” was the strength of liberal arts students, but now I feel that science students’ concept creation ability is not only powerful, but also very logical.

Mr. Will’s concepts of “dual memes” and “meme stacking” just explain some of my feelings: I always feel that everyone calls everything “memes”, but are they the same concept? Sometimes it represents something very lasting, such as culture and habits; but there are also some fleeting ones, such as cat pictures, dog pictures and meme pictures circulating on social networks, also called memes. I don’t think they are the same thing. Because the latter disappears quickly, while the former can last for thousands of years.

In fact, the performance of the entire encryption industry, from its birth to the present, is also in line with the logic of “meme superposition”. After so many cycles, the halving cycle, the craze represented by ICO, DeFi Summer, etc., etc., each wave seems to be regarded as a “meme”.

But these memes are still relatively shallow. If the entire development curve of the crypto industry is stretched, it is still an upward line. What is the support under this line? I thought about it, and felt that there was a strong “meme”, or that the concept has not changed from beginning to end – such as yearning for freedom, autonomy, low-level geek spirit, etc. There may be new spokespersons in each round, and these new spokespersons have such commonalities in their personalities and images.

Will (29:34): I agree with that. Systems like Bitcoin and Ethereum do, to some extent, embody this “bi-meme” pattern.

On the one hand, the growth of currency prices brings wealth effects, and on the other hand, they have their own ideas. For example, Bitcoin’s “asset inviolability, asset freedom, or immunity from currency over-issue”; Ethereum is “the computer of the virtual world, the infrastructure of computational finance” – their dual meme is called perfect combination.

From this perspective, they are still far ahead of projects like StepN. StepN’s meme is a superposition of “wealth effect” and “safety”, and the dual meme of Bitcoin and Ethereum has even merged into one – your “wealth freedom, avoiding currency over-issuance” “Influence” and “currency price growth” are integrated, in fact, they are two sides of the same coin. And the characteristics of Ethereum – your “gas consumption” and “the cost of using computational infrastructure” – are also integrated.

Truly lasting, even great, projects will certainly have such characteristics. As for whether it was designed or spontaneous, we dare not say. But it will certainly reflect the “multiple memes” that are perfectly stacked.

Xiao ran (31:37): Mr. Will called the basic layer of the “double meme” “safety”. We also mentioned it in the issue of Metaverse Sexual Harassment. “Safety” is a good description, but are there other angles to this type of meme?

For example, a “commonality” of human beings, an existing “habit”, “culture” or “belief” – or the result of the solidification of the meme culture accumulated by human beings for a long time.

For example, the human nature of “advocating freedom” may have been just a short-term meme similar to “stalk” at first. But like the “selfish gene”, it developed selfishly (this “selfishness” has no emotional color) without being designed or manipulated, and finally turned into this result – the idea of ​​advocating freedom.

Memes and genes are the same. Certain behaviors and ideas are slowly solidified over a long period of time, forming a “default” thing to do. In fact, running is the same, because “running can be healthy” may be a “stalk” at the beginning, a solidified thinking. If we have to break it down, it may not be certain whether running can make you healthier. But it has become an idea.

Will (33:22): Right . From the point of view of the genetic analogy, I will add one more point.

The human genome is huge. Humans have hands, legs, eyes and noses, all of which are actually determined by different gene segments. The human body has such complex characteristics, which is a particularly typical dissipative structure.

From the perspective of a project, an economy, or social activities, there are indeed many memes, but it is difficult to be determined by millions or billions of fragments like genes-because human cognition is difficult reach this size. We can’t design a thing to have 5 million memes, and let everyone recognize it – from this point of view, memes are very different from genes.

A good project, good economy or social body should have 1-3 strong memes that can be recognized by everyone.The rest is probably left to the “structure” to do.

Trot (34:44): I suggest you read Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene and Susan’s The Meme Machine again – it’s actually saying the same thing from beginning to end, whether it’s a gene or a meme, it’s “Selfish. But memes, I think, may be more “selfish” than genes – the so-called selfishness is not based on anyone’s will, can’t be designed, and passed on in a natural way.

If we think about it from the perspective of memes, in fact, human thoughts are not created by ourselves, nor are they used to serve us; instead, we are the hosts of memes, which are parasitic on us, and we are possessed by memes. So what kind of memes can be passed down cannot be designed by others.

The role of memes has come to an end, Mr. Will will analyze StepN from the perspective of “structure”?

Will (35:55): We have discussed that the complex structure of the dissipator is an essential feature of reinforcing the positive feedback mechanism. Without a complex structure, it is difficult to establish a positive feedback mechanism. But in fact, this sentence only said half, there should be the other half.

If you want to prevent a dissipative struct from collapsing quickly, you should have a “corresponding struct”. It should actually be the opposite of the “positive feedback mechanism”, a “negative feedback mechanism” to some extent. Or the concept of “friction”.

If the “positive feedback mechanism” is too strong, for example, the money invested in StepN can be earned back in three days, and I can run 24 hours a day, such a positive feedback mechanism must be strong. I can even optimize it, such as giving more money in the first hour, and more money in the second or third hour – if this is designed, the positive feedback mechanism will be stronger.

But in fact, if you design like this, the final collapse must be an instant – because everyone will work hard to accumulate, and then sell it once. Because the more people that can be obtained, the greater the pressure to sell, the less valuable it will be, and the faster it will eventually collapse.

So we will see a very interesting thing: the design of many systems, such as the four-year halving cycle of Bitcoin, and the energy of each pair of StepN shoes is only enough to run for 10 minutes a day – you will find that the logic of these mechanisms is Conversely – the longer you spend and the more you give, the less you get. This is clearly a “negative feedback mechanism”.

This is very strange, is there something wrong with our dissipative structure theory? Should the complex structure be a positive feedback mechanism or a negative feedback mechanism?

Actually I think it’s normal. The inherent characteristics of dissipative structures, what are their premises? It is to exchange matter and energy with the outside world. So, “positive feedback” is of course good when you come in, but when you go out, if it’s still “positive feedback”, isn’t it even worse? In fact, every designer of a dissipator (we assume that the structure can be designed) must design a structure that is easy to get in and hard to get out.

Therefore, this complex structure must reflect the characteristics of both aspects: the positive feedback mechanism “strengthens” when it comes in, and the positive feedback mechanism “weakens” when it goes out. That is, an absolutely rigid rule, making one direction fast and the other slow.

It sounds easy to understand, but it is difficult to do in practice. why?

A purely linear thing, going in one direction is a speed, and going in the other direction must be the same speed. And complex structures have different dimensions. Some dimensions are used to strengthen the speed of entry, while others are used to weaken the speed of exit.

If I simply want it to be “fast in, slow out” – it can’t be done with a mathematical rigid logic. The only thing that can be done is to settle for the next best thing. Let the “speed of entry” not be so fast. Otherwise, if a person can enter freely as long as he wants to enter, he can master a lot of energy in your body through the accumulation of time.

If you allow it to swap out in an instant, the system collapses too quickly. In fact, the strategies that we see now that can really be implemented are to achieve a balance between the two as much as possible. This is actually a very standard routine in the game industry, which we generally call “balance”.

Just like StepN’s design, you can only run for ten minutes a day, and your energy will be gone. 24 hours a day requires a variety of tricks to get a lot of GST – this design is a typical balanced design, to be limited. This is the first point of our structural analysis.

But here comes the problem, if you don’t let it come in too fast, that’s fine, I don’t consume it after 10 minutes, because I don’t get the benefit, and I don’t want to consume the cost, right? But if you don’t close it, your shoes will be worn out.This logic is obviously unreasonable for consumers – why can’t I get benefits, and there will be consumption?

It’s also very simple. Because the operation of this architecture has a cost. Running requires a GPS signal, and you need to register your running data, all of which consume background computing power. If all computing power is recorded on the blockchain, such as on Ethereum, then each transaction needs to consume gas fees, so the recording also costs money.

Not recorded on the blockchain, the same is true in a data center, where machines run every day. For example, Tencent, WeChat is free because there are other means of income, otherwise it cannot hide the fact of “cost”.

Therefore, the design cannot be viewed purely from the outside, everything has a cost – I think this is a very important direction for the future system development.

Web2.0 and the Internet model “wool comes from pigs” actually hides the “cost” of system operation – they all think that there are other sources of income to subsidize their own costs. A model like the Ethereum blockchain actually rationalizes the “cost” – every operation I have has a cost, you can see this cost, and this is a more reasonable model. In fact, the development of Web 3.0 should also go in this direction. Every operation has a cost, and you know how much the cost is, and you can decide to pay or not.

Back to StepN, it doesn’t matter if you don’t want to pay any more costs, you can turn it off; but turning it off means that the software no longer undertakes functions such as recording for you. This is very important in the application structure of Web3.0 and cannot be ignored. If you make it into a standard Web2.0 form and hide the cost, the system will not be sustainable.

To sum up, a good “structure” will have two major characteristics: First, there are positive feedback mechanisms and negative feedback mechanisms. Don’t go too fast, as it may cause an accelerated collapse. Second, the friction or cost of the actual operation within the system should be explicit so that all participants can know it.

Trot (44:45): Very exciting. I don’t think many of the following questions need to be asked.

We cannot control the development of “memes”, but the matter of “structure” can have a more reasonable and subtle design.

Positive feedback is actually an “acceleration”. Positive feedback is divided into “positive positive feedback” and “negative positive feedback”, positive positive feedback is getting faster and faster, and negative positive feedback is getting slower and slower. But negative feedback should be a concept of negative correlation, a concept of “pulling back”.

This made me think that the logic of this structure actually applies to the financial industry. For example, the “negative and positive feedback” when the financial market crashes; there is also the “balance” between the business department, risk control department, and operation department in the bank. The risk control department is a “negative feedback”, and everything must be “pulled back”, especially when the market is good, more friction should be exerted on the highly developed business. (Of course, the current financial system is very flawed, and the negative feedback force has become very small. This may also be related to human mentality – when the market is good, the party that should have played a negative feedback role will also be affected by the negative feedback. The impact on the business side has instead become the boost of positive feedback).

The best structure for the financial industry is the balance of efficiency, cost and risk – forming a stable triangle.

In the same way, the current development dilemma of the Internet and web2.0 may be that the triangle lacks the corner of “explicit cost”, which will lead to an unbalanced and unsustainable situation.

Will (47:53): Both of these features are actually an “overall” feature. A project like StepN has a lot of ingenuity in its structural design.

In fact, whether it is crypto, Web3.0, or traditional financial markets or Web2.0 projects, they will gradually start to integrate with each other, because everyone has their own shortcomings.

For example, in the early days of Web3.0 or the encryption industry, the positive feedback mechanism was too emphasized, so countless myths of “ten thousand times a year” or even “one hundred thousand times” were born, and various crashes were also born, which led to people in traditional industries. Always very suspicious that you are not a scam. Projects like StepN that have good intentions and want to keep playing will actively design an obvious negative feedback mechanism, that is, a mechanism similar to risk control – this is actually learning from traditional industries.

Traditional industries also take detours and crooked paths, and they place too much emphasis on covering up costs. Not only in the Internet, but also in the financial industry. To give the simplest example, there is almost no handling fee for bank transfers in China, and only part of the transfer fee may be charged for large-value transfers – this is actually a sign of not learning well. Operations all require costs, so cover up the cost of handling fees, or cover up another purpose with superficial means. I think it is not good, or we should return to the balance of cost, risk and benefit, which is the correct development direction.

The current financial industry should be reversed, and stop learning the Internet “wool comes from pigs” routine. The two worlds should converge for better development.

Xiao Pao (51:13): A student in the group asked two days ago: Is this “earning while X” model a Web3.0 product? Or is it actually still Web2.0, just rubbing against the concept of Web3.0? Or are you trying to use the tokenomics model of Web3.0 to change your financing method?

Will (53:21): This is an ongoing topic. The main problem at present is that the definitions of Web2.0 and Web3.0 are not so precise. It must be said that a certain project belongs to Web2.0 or Web3.0, there is really no way to be precise.

Projects like “X to earn”, or StepN, are not just Web 2.0 that includes tokens. To put it bluntly, it is this point that everyone is questioning – whether you are a new model, or is it actually a project that has tokens, can be financed, and can be bought and sold. I think to a certain extent, StepN is slightly different from other Web3.0 projects, and its “token” factor is a little bigger.

There have been many projects like StepN in the past, but most of them failed or disappeared. Some even do better, it is a real pair of shoes, the chip is implanted in the shoe, and then connected with the mobile phone through bluetooth and so on. Of course, it may also be a gimmick, or only a prototype product is made, and there is no real large-scale promotion.But from the perspective of “technological innovation”, the chip is implanted in the shoe, and compared with the simple GPS pedometer capability of StepN, it sounds like the feeling of technological innovation will be stronger.

I think that in the absence of a precise definition of Web3.0, it can be summed up as a question of “degree”. What exactly is Web3.0? What technology, model, or underlying process should be more technologically innovative? Or is it more closely integrated with the blockchain? Or make full use of some of the features of smart contracts? It may be more objective to consider from these perspectives.

Xiao ran (56:42): I feel that it may be a “door”, an entrance into Web 3.0. I feel that so far, it is only a means, not an end; or it is a door, window, or bridge to a new world, let me enter this world first. But what is the bigger role after that, or whether the whole world of it is only running, I think it may not necessarily be in my cognition.

This brings us to another huge “basket” that we’re going to discuss – the Bridge of Parallel Worlds. Let’s stop today and talk to you next time.

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/earn-while-running-running-into-web3-0/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2022-04-30 09:33
Next 2022-04-30 09:35

Related articles