Web 3.0: A “Cyber ​​Capitalism” Lie

In web3: a game of concepts , we discussed how having “ownable” at the heart of the new web3 vision is actually a ridiculous play on words that defies common sense. Because “possession” itself is an ideology that relies on human society, attempts to “technicalize” and “objectify” ideology are doomed to be fragile.

In this article, we will further illustrate that such attempts are not only fragile, but also dangerous. We will present structurally how the specter of capitalism creeps into the cloak of web3 technologism. And how this combination of technology and capitalism finally formed a unique and familiar “cyber capitalism” for human beings.

To define bourgeois property is nothing more than a description of all the social relations of bourgeois production – Karl Marx

On March 4, 2021, a registered account of the BurntFinance blockchain team burned a painting artwork “Moron” by British artist Bansky in a live broadcast.

Before that, they had just taken this 2006 work for $95,000 and made it into an NFT collection. Then, they destroyed the work in the live broadcast room.

Such crazy behavior has allowed them to obtain considerable returns-the NFT backup of “Idiot” was sold for 4 times more than the original price on the Opensea platform.

Burn a Volvo and earn a Maybach with tears.

Web 3.0: A "Cyber ​​Capitalism" Lie“moron” burned by live broadcast | Source: Internet

In BurntFinace’s “burning painting” manifesto, they explained this seemingly crazy behavior:

“If (a work of art) has both an NFT and a physical part, the value will be mostly in the physical part. By removing the physical properties, leaving only the NFT, the contractual validity of the blockchain can be ensured… and the physical Value moves to NFTs.”

As those of us who have received an education in thinking, similar scenes are not unfamiliar.

In a capitalist society, producers often actively annihilate the commodity itself (use value) in order to maintain the price of the commodity as a whole (exchange value). We are most familiar with the events that occurred during the Great Economic Crisis of 1929, when American farmers dumped milk to maintain overall commodity prices.

That photo is still in our textbooks to this day.

Web 3.0: A "Cyber ​​Capitalism" LieSource: Network

And “burning pictures” is the “pour milk” in the era of web3.0. The two of them are similar in nature, but “burning pictures” presents a very unique madness that can only be found in the context of web 3.0.

If you look back at the current situation of the collapse of the blockchain today and look at it with hindsight, this behavior of “burning pictures” is just like “pouring milk”, which to some extent heralds the bursting of the web3 bubble:

(1) The currency energy of web3 has reached a climax, the pricing model has lost its rationality, and the property rights model has also been separated from the real world;

(2) The “aggressiveness” of radical web3 players is officially presented to everyone – they believe that web3 and the physical world are not “complementary”, but have a clear-cut value opposition and value competition;

(3) Like all capitalism, they are cold-blooded and rude about things themselves, based on monetary value.

If you want to choose a picture to depict cyber capitalism under web3, “burning pictures” must be an iconic scene.

But just “burning pictures” is obviously not enough to show the full picture of web3’s capitalism. In the following, we will gradually illustrate the combination of capitalism and technology in the context of web3 from three aspects.Web 3.0: A "Cyber ​​Capitalism" Lie

Cyber ​​Rights and the Birth of Whales

In “web3: A Game of Concepts”, we mentioned web3 by Eshita et al. as a revolutionary web that is “ownable”.Correspondingly, “property rights” has logically become the first important concept in web3.

Whether it is currency or NFT, they are in fact using web3 technology to redefine property rights in the digital world.

How is this form achieved?

We can think of the blockchain as a huge spreadsheet, with each column recording the corresponding asset, transaction records, and the wallet to which the asset currently belongs. This is probably like the “life and death book” of Lord Yama, which comprehensively records the profit and loss of the “good news” in each private account.

What the two have in common is that for each microscopic individual, this “book of life and death” is a “transcendental” existence. We can’t tamper with this form, but can only try to change a small column on the grid that belongs to us – “burning incense” in Yan Wangye, and paying Gas (which can be understood as a handling fee) in web3.

The difference between the two is that only gods can read the life and death book of Lord Yan, but in web3, this form is public, and everyone can download and view these forms.

Therefore, there are also views that the underlying world of web3 is essentially a reconciliation system.

Originally, the reconciliation system itself could not be established independently of the entity, but the whole set of vision of web3 actually gave the reconciliation system vitality. Taking NFT as an example, in fact, a unique pixel address (usually an address supported by blockchain technology such as IFPS) is introduced into the entire accounting system.

In web2’s view, NFTs are pixels that can be copied at will. But in the view of web3, in the two superimposed blockchain systems, this pixel has exclusivity, and then becomes the property rights of only one person.

In the eyes of outsiders, this “property rights” logic is an unreasonable game. But when enough people believe this logic, within a certain group of people, this accounting system has “legitimacy”. So within a certain range, the exclusive pixel addresses in these systems naturally have value.

Therefore , for the “macro world”, the future of web3 should be a monopoly and interconnected super large table——

We can allow Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and Arhats at the same time. They are compatible with each other and form a unified world in the form of “cross-chain”. But if we have Yama, Buddha, God, and Allah at the same time, then it is actually an atheistic country.

This is also why in the eyes of the public chain believers, the alliance chain is a pagan existence, because the former actually damages the monopoly vision of the latter.

But for “micro-individuals” , this table means “decentralized” properties , so that our assets do not have to depend on some specific entities to exist.

In the eyes of technologists, a “decentralized” property rights system means countless “good words”:

Transparent and open, the table means that the assets are transparent and verifiable; decentralization means libertarianism and democracy. Some people even compare web2 and web3 to capitalism and communism respectively, to emphasize the superiority of this “decentralization” ability, and describe a beautiful vision of “the world is united”.

But there is often a huge gap between vision and results. This is reflected in at least three properties of web3 finance:

First of all, although the assets are traceable, the wallet is actually anonymous. From the perspective of the blockchain, there has never been the so-called “equality of all beings”, only the “wallet” is equal. Wallets cannot be annihilated, and keys cannot be modified. In theory, as long as anyone knows the key of a wallet, it is equivalent to permanently owning the wallet.

Therefore, it is almost difficult for regulation to land under such primitive technical conditions. Who can censor a key that doesn’t even know where it exists and if anyone remembers it. This makes web3’s DeFi (Decentralized Finance) market the most opaque block trading market in the world.

No one knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is, how many wallets and how many coins he has. And such “pseudo-name culture” is actually very popular among early web3 entrants. After all, “making a fortune in silence” can help them avoid many risks in public opinion, policy and taxation.

Secondly , since the essence of the chain is a set of accounting systems. So theoretically, digital assets can enter the ledger in any way and in any form.

It can be an NFT in any form of audio and video, or it can be a company’s stock equity, or a membership card of some brands, etc. Its form can be a package of several assets, or an infinitely divided share of an asset (the “equity” of web3 projects is often presented in the form of tokens).

Of course, the premise is that these products are supported by “legality” – for example, these brands must recognize the existence of blockchain membership cards, or within a specific range of funds, everyone agrees that NFTs and coins have exclusive value.

Finally , since it is an undifferentiated digital asset, it also gives these assets great liquidity.

The dual attributes of decentralization and digitization have actually opened the ceiling of digital asset transactions.

In the physical world, commodity delivery requires the support of complex systems such as matching and logistics. When it comes to web2, the purchased content often needs to be used on a specific content platform. For example, the obvious “digital collection” of vinyl records you purchased can only be played on a certain head platform. For stocks and futures, it is necessary to rely on the business hours of the exchange to trade.

However, because web3 is an undifferentiated accounting system, any content on the chain can actually be “decentralized” – transacted with anyone at any time and on any occasion.

In addition, as an asset, it can also be split in advance to promote liquidity; “anonymity” can also bypass supervision, eliminating the need for complex compliance reporting and tax filing.

Liquidity is an important concept that essentially represents the “power” of capital holders.

It can be said that in web3, what we can see is a vision of capital flow that is infinitely close to absolute freedom.And as Sartre said, absolute freedom brings absolute power.

What would happen if the vision of web3 really covered real world economic rights?

  • Based on the above three attributes, we can make up an investment case in the web3 scenario:

Suppose we are an LP investor who has invested in the global early stage fund of the global web3 and Metaverse giant “Byte and Move”. So, how long do you need to wait to get the capital return after the split and listing of the world’s most successful Dapp “Bodiyin”?

In real life, you may never get the money. Because early-stage funds may lose their gains in the new consumption track; even if there is no loss, the long review of cross-border capital flows is very troublesome. Perhaps the best way to quickly cash out is to sell your fund shares in a package.

But in the world of web3, it is essentially a bookkeeping game. We just need to count the corresponding shares and put them in your wallet.

Even the listing of “Bodiyin” itself is a false proposition, because web3 may have eliminated the exchange, leaving the project in the so-called “listed” state all the time.

  • We can think about a second example:

In the capital world of web2, Musk had trouble extracting funds when he bought Twitter. So what would happen if Zhang Sanming, chairman of “Bytes and Moves”, wanted to acquire the web3 social media “Twitters”?

We will presumably see some volatility (or none at all) in asset prices for Twitters and ByteDance. Careful people will find that a batch of wallets that have not been touched very much have begun to sell bytes, and a batch of new wallets have begun to buy Twitters. But in the vast web3 world, few people connect the two.

Then the next blockchain vote found that Elona Musk had finally managed to become the chairman of Twitters.

Of course, what people never know is that the person standing behind Elona is actually Zhang Sanming.

Web 3.0: A "Cyber ​​Capitalism" LieElona has become one of Elon’s countless official stalks that are widely circulated | Source: Internet

In web3, people who hold super coins are called “whales”. They are lurking in the ocean, huge in size, and ready to blast a giant splash in the market at any time.

This is an interesting metaphor. In fact, currency in the real world is like water, with various complex forms.

It has both flowing rivers (primary and secondary markets), lakes (banks, funds), and a considerable part is fixed in the soil (companies & industries). Due to the sovereign system, taxation mechanism, market supervision and many other restrictions, the owner of the land actually owns water in name, but cannot easily strip off the “water”.

The advantage of such an institutional arrangement is that it ensures that most of the “water” is dedicated to building productivity and cultivating food for human society. Otherwise, if water flows freely, there will be a shortage of water in the soil (industry).

But in web3, capitalists and capital have become ghosts, and ghosts are truly free.

Human society may appear for the first time, and only through a few virtual wallets, as a direct natural person, all the wealth of human society can be mastered. They can walk between different shares without having to pay high management energy, face complex market competition, or even pay taxes. Today, in the DeFi miracle, invisible billionaires with tens of billions of wealth have been born. There seems to be no upper limit to this wealth centralization of web3.

People often say that money is “things outside the body”, and web3 will turn capital into “things inside the body” in a sense. This is a bit like the rich people in “Time Planning Bureau”, their “wealth” is directly reflected on their wrists.

web3 technologism effectively circumvents regulation, transforms the liquidity of assets, and constructs a new capitalist world. It is not a human continent where men plough and women weave, but an ocean…

If it is said that on the land, organizations, civilizations and empires will be born; then in the ocean, whales will be born.

But what humans need is tissue, and only whales need whales.

Tokenism and Potential Human Alienation

As mentioned above, the blockchain technology behind web3 has had anxiety about the source of “legitimacy” since its inception. This anxiety continues to this day – as a bookkeeping system that is too good, it is so good that there is nothing of real-world value that can book it for it.

This is of course directly related to the centralized power relationship of traditional assets. Especially when web3 becomes a corner that cannot be covered by regulation, it is difficult for the traditional system to achieve compliance in it, and it is difficult to derive the benefits of efficiency necessity in it.

And web3’s solution to this is: invent digital assets by yourself to make the blockchain system work. We try to “learn” how the web sequence is defined (“read-only” and “writable”), and divide the progress of this web3 into three stages like the web sequence number:

  • 1.0 period: The blockchain currency represented by Bitcoin is almost an asset born purely for this system, and it was born almost at the same time as blockchain technology;
  • 2.0 period: The content assets represented by NFT, the “on-chain” of books, audio, video and paintings.

These assets are much like when the web was just developing. After all, whether 30 years ago or today, content is the most cost-effective asset – their unit price ceiling is high, and the migration cost is very low. Especially those “read-only” “boutique content”, even more so.

But obviously, the “legitimacy” crisis of the blockchain has not been resolved at this stage.

Even in the “base camp” of the United States, despite Zuckerberg’s resignation on Libra’s landing plan, the government still firmly rejected the stablecoin project. This means that Congress has great doubts about the risks of this financial method – too much supervision is the armor of web3, and it is also the soft underbelly of web3.

web3 must find new scenarios to further extend its “legitimacy”. One of the most famous conceptual attempts is the “Metaverse”.

Compared with coins and NFTs, the future edge computing and decentralization scenarios of the Metaverse are more ambitious. It will solve once and for all the legitimacy crisis of web3 and build a new world that grows independently beyond regulation.

But after all, the Metaverse is too far away, we can regard this 3.0 period as the on-chain (“writable”) of scene and behavior data for the time being.

The most intuitive attempt is actually X2E (X to earn), which allows web3 to create a scene that is unique to itself. Users generate data on Dapp in exchange for corresponding tokens, and then complete the “monetization” of their own behavior data and scene data.

We can see the digitalization process of web3, which is almost equivalent to the tokenization process.

People try to make web3 transformation (on-chain) of all the assets that were once centralized, and then sell the corresponding tokens. In theory, all assets that can be digitized can be tokenized; and all items that can be quantitatively described can be digitized. If the process of digitization is turbulent, then the token will be like the mouse lying on the digitized cow in the zodiac racing story.

So whether it is the Metaverse, or real life merged with the web. We can all make an ongoing judgment about the future based on the development logic of web3 above:

  • Any asset with “private property value” and “digitalization” will be on the chain and will have its own token.

These assets include, but are not limited to, our valuable behavioral data, health data, and even privacy data, etc.; all virtual assets in the Metaverse, including but not limited to real estate, clothing, avatars, in-game vehicles, and more.

We might as well call this expectation “tokenism” – in the web3 world, everything can be tokenized.

This dual-track merger of digitization and monetization may bring about an “alienation” of human society.

The most intuitive is the change of item attributes.

For example, in real life, objects are firstly “supplies” and secondly “commodities”.

The existence of “commodities” in items is actually very short-lived, often only from a few days to a few months from the factory to the cashier; and once an item reflects the value of “goods”, its “commodity” attribute is quickly wasted.

However, in the web3 world, there is no concept of “depreciation”, and the centralized “circulation pattern” has also ended. All tokens can present indistinguishable commodity forms at any time.

In other words, in the web3 world, items are “commodities” first and “supplies” second.

The effects of such swapping of item attributes can be complex. For example, in such an environment, all commodities will show a certain “investment attribute”, and then the prices of scarce products will rise rapidly.

This actually has corresponding cases in real life, such as the transaction of basketball trendy shoes and medieval women’s bags. In order to maximize the protection of the commodity value of the sneakers, the participants will not wear shoes even once. Historically, the ancient governments focused on controlling items with similar properties, such as salt, iron, silver, etc.

Because if there is no good market supervision system, it will almost certainly attract a few people to monopolize the commodity market – when there is no risk of discounting the commodity, the benefits of price monopoly will become more attractive.

This kind of change in the attributes of objects will inevitably promote the overall alienation of people in different dimensions.

We don’t want to talk about the impact of so-called “screen traffic”, “mobile phone”, etc. on the human brain. This article focuses on the discussion of cybercapitalism, so we temporarily return to Marx’s classic “labor alienation” theory.

In Marx’s view, alienation has at least two aspects.

On the one hand, alienation makes human labor a commodity.

The most typical expression is Henry Ford’s famous saying, “We obviously only want to hire a pair of hands, why did one come here”.

Secondly, the labor results brought about by alienation are not only “alien”, but also become a kind of force that opposes oneself. According to Marx, under the framework of capitalism, “the appreciation of the world of things is proportional to the depreciation of the world of men” .

The harder the workers work as a group, the cheaper the single product of their labor becomes. He himself will become a cheap commodity, and the poorer he will be.

In fact, in some third world countries, worker labor has become so cheap that it takes several jobs to barely cover household expenses. For the middle class, people forget about this kind of “exploitation” when they get cheap goods and services, and then think about it when they buy a house or when their kids go to school or the elderly go to the doctor.

So we can ask a new question along this logic:

If tokenism digitizes and monetizes people’s data pervasively, will the exploitation of capitalism also become pervasive?

If everything we have is tokenized, then everything of the people at the bottom will also enter the category of digital exploitation.

Ford needs your hands, Gates may need your eyes, Musk may need your legs. When people sleep, there may be a large pharmaceutical company, equipment manufacturer, or insurance company that needs your sleep data. Can web3 in the future be able to “legally” obtain the data and labor of a large number of proletarians under the guise of tokens at extremely cheap prices – just like they contract a womb for $300 in the third world?

Then web3 will only protect the data security of people in the middle class and above, and effectively and deeply exploit the data ownership of the proletariat.

Exploitation in the web3 world has already occurred in third world countries, currently in the form of X2N.

For example, in the Philippines and Argentina, the “PLAY TO EARN” blockchain game “Axie Infinity” has become the work of some young people. They breed pets, earn points through battles, or sell pets to obtain blockchain currency, forming a set of “breeding industry” on web3.

On the StepN platform, high rewards allow some people to buy expensive virtual shoes on the platform, and then hire takeaway riders and couriers to “wear” the shoes, thereby obtaining cash flow – this has become a classic labor exploitation scene, Someone owns the “means of production” and buys labor to get money.

But compared to the industrial agglomeration advantages of different countries, web3 is actually global in theory.

This means that as long as the rules allow, African farmers and American workers will directly participate in StepN’s “running competition”, and the industrial worker barriers established between regions will no longer exist. The situation created by capitalism, which continuously transfers value to the outside for the stability of the domestic system, and thus maintains the relative “welfare society” of the country, will also face challenges.

The proletarians of the world, the world is equally hot and cold.

We should be glad that running can’t really make money, otherwise someone will die in virtual shoes. We should also be glad that washing dishes will not make money, otherwise there will be people washing dishes at home every day. But that doesn’t mean that we won’t play the man who is constantly washing dishes or running in designs like X to eran in the future.

We may not yet know what the form of exploitation will look like in the future, but this kind of use of digitization to monetize human life and then market it requires vigilance.

This may be a slightly strange thing. Compared with people 100 years ago who were alienated in machines and became a component of machines, our generation may be alienated in “life”.

In the final analysis, Token will become a kind of auxiliary capital. In terms of the breadth of regions and the depth of life of workers, it will be an unprecedentedly efficient tool of exploitation.

And this kind of tool, with the support of the structure of super capitalists and super monopolies, will become more powerful.

Web 3.0: A "Cyber ​​Capitalism" LiePeople in Black Mirror earn money by riding bicycles

super monopoly capitalism

All web3 proponents will tell you that web3 is true equality, the light of freedom and democracy.

The reason why technocrats are often misjudged in the big technology outlook is that technocrats often think from the standpoint of the petty bourgeoisie. They get a part of the capital dividend and simply worship the free market, but it is easier to ignore the systemic problems brought about by the unbundling of capital.

This isn’t the first time the IT elite has touted the “equal rights” of new technology, and it probably won’t be the last.However, in the absence of fundamental changes in the basic social production relations system, almost all human “technical equality” ultimately brings about a larger scale of “economic centralization”:

web1.0, people believe that the Internet will bring about the free flow of information, and personal websites can eliminate the information monopoly of traditional media;

With web2.0, the era of social media has exploded, and Twitter and Weibo have become new Internet squares; LBS-based social networking and takeaways are believed to break the hegemony of geographic locations.

But what about the end result? The overlord of web1.0 is one level larger than the market value of traditional media; the overlord of web2.0 is one level larger than the scale ceiling of the web1.0 era.

In 2000, Yahoo’s market value reached a maximum of 120 billion US dollars, equivalent to Thailand’s GDP that year, ranking 32nd among the world’s sovereign countries.

Apple’s market value in 2022 will exceed US$3 trillion, which is equivalent to the UK’s GDP last year, ranking fifth among the world’s sovereign countries.

In fact, the development trend of web3 is actually worse than that of web2. Taking Bitcoin as an example, it has a monopoly protection design for early miners with strong artificial traces.

Bitcoin is actually a mining game that only protects relatively first movers, with a total of only 21 million. Early miners could mine a lot of bitcoins with a personal PC, while later miners contracted an entire hydropower station, which could not reach the output of one PC that year.

In the real world, scarcity leads to higher prices, and as a result, the liquidity of an asset is often compromised.

But assets like Bitcoin are virtually infinitely divisible. In 2011, the Bitcoin Conference determined that its smallest unit is 1 satoshi, and 1 satoshi is equal to 100 million bitcoins. In other words, if you are an early miner, you actually enjoy the protection of the total amount of 21 million; but if you are a latecomer, the actual total amount of currency will be up to 2100 trillion.

This is actually the first entrant, relying on its own monopoly position, to the latter entrant with a drumbeat to pass the fancy classic leek cutting.

And the “factual monopoly” brought about by this “coin issuance” has actually been applied in many other scenarios. The powerful demonstration effect of Bitcoin makes coin issuance a powerful tool for web3 projects to attract early capital investment. Such as DAO, X2E and other games, there are similar attempts.

But just talking about DeFi obviously cannot summarize the potential monopoly tendencies in web3.

Because many web3 fans insist that DeFi is just a chaotic pain in the early days of web3. When web3 enters the scene and develops Dapps, it will truly reflect the “decentralization” of web3, which is an advantage compared to web2.

But the results can be just as counterproductive.

Web 3.0: A "Cyber ​​Capitalism" LieSource: unsplash

We think web3 will actually create monopoly in at least three directions:

  • Monetary Monopoly (as above)
  • Miners and underlying architecture

The computing power efficiency is highly introverted and the scene is single. If the demand is confirmed for a long time, its head attribute must be much higher than that of the public cloud market, which will lead to a super mining farm that integrates the maintenance of chips, energy and computing power.

  • Scene application (Dapp)

In “web3: a game of concepts”, we believe that web3 does not have a direct logical relationship with web2. In fact, web3 and web are actually more like two parallel forms of the Internet. In terms of interaction logic, web3 is actually similar to web, and web3 has no fundamental changes compared to web2.

Because the interaction limit brought by web2 is not determined by web technology in essence, but by human brain bandwidth and social structure.

First of all, the bandwidth of the human brain has not soared over the past thousands of years, which means that we still need a centralized and aggregated platform to help us filter information;

Secondly, the structure of human production relations with a high degree of division of labor will not change, and we will still choose the best products and content in the division of labor to feed ourselves;

Supporters of web3 believe that since the ownership of data returns to users, users can vote with their feet at any time, diversifying the platform. But this is a common fallacy in the consumer society . It is always the production side that determines the content of consumers.

There are already many monopoly products in web2, which do not rely on the accumulation of user data to create barriers.

Such as take-out, group buying, e-commerce, and games, the lower the user data barrier, the more efficient giants will emerge.

Capital will not allow users to churn. If a platform can’t do it, the capital will switch to a new platform.

The final result will not be the diversification of the platform, but more likely to be a platform giant that is more efficient, less error-free, and more demanding on employees and service providers, becoming the “roll king of the roll kings” with a mature methodology. “.

Web 3.0: A "Cyber ​​Capitalism" LieKalanick, founder of UBER | Source: Network

But web3 is obviously not going to be a simple repeat of the web2 pattern. On the contrary, the huge monetary influence of web3 actually brings two capital features that web2 has never had, which may make the monopoly within the web3 system even more powerful than that of web2:

First, web3 top players are embracing politics, especially third world regimes, like never before.

Some national regimes are making diplomatic endorsements for some private individuals, and even merging interests:

For example, the controversial Justin Sun is currently the Permanent Representative of Grenada to the WTO (World Trade Organization) and Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. These titles can help him obtain “diplomatic immunity”, which in fact avoids the potential risk of criminal investigation or prosecution for suspicions such as money laundering.

El Salvador directly identified Bitcoin as legal tender, and used the treasury to buy Bitcoin; its President Bukele not only established personal education with many web3 bigwigs, but also devoted himself to building himself into a global web3 influencer. The frequency of its daily tweets is no less than that of Musk.

The Sri Lankan country recently went bankrupt, and many web3 people hope to use DeFi to transform the national financial system, hoping to make web3 a solution to third world problems.

These in-depth cooperation can help web3 “funds without borders” bypass regions with strong sovereign supervision such as China, the United States, and Europe, and obtain strategic cooperation at the sovereign level in fact in the third world.

Web 3.0: A "Cyber ​​Capitalism" LieEl Salvador’s president takes a selfie with the UN on social media

Secondly, the relationship between web3’s platform chain and developers is unprecedented.

You can’t imagine that one day Google, Apple, and Microsoft will invest in most of the developers on the market, but it can become a reality in the web3 world. The relationship between chains, coins, and developers is actually very ambiguous, and in many cases it is even a trinity.

This combination can be complicated:

  • The actual control fund of the chain has a lot of coins, they need someone to make a big cake, so they will use coins to attract a lot of Dapps;
  • And if the developer is successful enough, it will end up building a chain or issuing a currency (for example, Solana was founded by the founder of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX)
  • DAO bypasses all of this directly, allowing developers all over the world to unite and play with their own coins and ecology;
  • In addition, there are some venture capitals similar to web2 logic, linking the platform and developers at the same time, and drinking a bowl of soup at both ends;

Therefore, you may find that under the vision of web3, whether it is Dapps, miners, platform chains, DAOs, whales, they may be the same group of people. They are linked to each other through tokens, with the token price as the form of distribution.

web3 has never belonged to the world, it belongs to “them”. The so-called dragon slayer can always become a new dragon.

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/web-3-0-a-cyber-capitalism-lie/
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 2022-08-01 22:34
Next 2022-08-01 22:36

Related articles