Web3: The Revolutionary Alternative to the Internet We Know Today

With all of the debate about whether cryptocurrencies are effective, I find myself seeking for use cases that go beyond the usual definitions of “currency,” i.e., that which is used primarily for transactions, where a unit of account is traded for a good or service.

I frequently find myself in venues that, despite being well-known to many in the crypto field, are still largely unexplored by me. I make an effort to be open about my cryptocurrency experience as a professional with a focus on the markets. Despite the fact that I am very familiar with numerous subjects, I believe there are still opportunities to learn more about Web3.

I completely understand the value proposition for Web3 conceptually. Web 1.0 spanned the initial years of the text-based internet, a time when users “surfed” read-only websites to access content created by others.

About 20 years ago, the “read” period was expanded with the emergence of Web 2.0, which is defined by users’ capacity to contribute their own content, communicate with others in real-time through social media, and gain attention for themselves (both positive and negative) through their activities. This period, often known as the “read-write” age, encompasses a large portion of our daily activities.

Web3 aims to combine the first two by introducing the idea of “ownership,” where users have control over their data, network transactions are peer-to-peer, and data itself is decentralized rather than being stored by a few centralized companies.

Why, therefore, is this significant? I’ll say this as I speak for myself. We are all, in some way, the sum of our individual experiences. And frequently, those experiences can be reduced to specific data points that reveal what we’ve done in the past and strongly suggest what we’ll probably do in the future.

You have probably already shared information about yourself with an entity that you are ignorant of and with whom you may or may not feel comfortable just by engaging with this content.

These details about you are quite useful to other companies; some of them have used our entire personal data set as the cornerstone of billion-dollar corporations. And we’re all ultimately just giving away the ending, like an unruly fan who gives away the ending of a movie.

We have exchanged our data in a variety of ways as a cost of entry to centralized protocols on strong networks. One mental representation might be the notion that everything you use in the actual area, from your home to your shoes, is on rent.
You only have control over the content you make to the extent that the centralized organization permits it in terms of content creation. In these situations, you are giving up what amounts to intellectual property as well as personal data.

Web3 could theoretically reverse that idea, giving each user property rights through the use of digital assets or tokens (see, there’s an angle here for a crypto magazine). This would give users entire ownership and control over their data and content.

Businesses might have to pay you for it rather than having unrestricted access to your personal habits and preferences.
You as an individual would keep your own stock of data and tokens, transporting them from protocol to protocol and adding and withdrawing them as you saw appropriate.
In an ideal scenario, more ownership of personal data would coexist with the attractiveness of robust networks that we see in centralized networks, with the blockchain serving as a trustless and permissionless vehicle to regulate peer-to-peer contact.

And I anticipate that people would find value in the ability to own something that legitimately belongs to us and decide how and how much we want it distributed.

Why then hasn’t this previously been adopted widely? First off, I anticipate that scalability will be a serious problem. Web3 requires widespread adoption in order to function properly.

Users must also find value in the tokens that are utilized as incentive mechanisms in addition to believing in the Web3 concept itself.

It makes sense that inertia will play a significant role in users’ shift from their present online interactions to a Web3 framework. Even if they appear to be smiling and accepting the loss of privacy and transmission of personal information, people are at ease with Web 2.0.

For desire of a better phrase, moral issues will probably be another obstacle. It should go without saying that not all content is created equally. Some people will probably be encouraged to create content that is unlawful and/or judged harmful in order to reduce their digital footprint. This is more to show what I think would be a reality than to criticize or pass judgment on anyone.

I think that time and creativity will be the cure for all of the problems with scalability and legality.
The option to retain control over one’s personal information while retaining the right to profit from it, in my opinion, is something that will gain popularity.

With organizations like JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Disney, and Apple researching the advantages of Web3 or making investments in the sector, the professional investing community appears to be in agreement as well.

Assets like Chainlink (LINK), Filecoin (FIL), and Audius (AUDIO) offer market participants access to Web3 development. The same is true for protocols like Ledgermail, Presearch (PRE), and DTube (DTUBE), which have email, Google, and YouTube as their Web 2.0 equivalents.

All in all, I think Web3 still has a long way to go, but it is making progress. I haven’t yet spoken to the person who has a positive opinion of how little control they have over how their data is disseminated.

To me, it stands to reason that the alternative would be seen favorably. But before many people see it, it will need time, perseverance, and creativity.