Why decentralization is not the ultimate goal of Web3

The transition from Web2 to Web3 it is unavoidable. However, as the demand for decentralization gains momentum, several important questions are being raised about the current state of blockchain technology and its promised “decentralization.”

Vitalik Buterin answered confessing that “a lot of it comes down to limited funding and technical resources. It’s easier to build things the centralized, lazy way, and it takes a lot of effort to ‘get it right.'” Or, Jack Dorsey’s recent tweet in which asserted that it is actually the venture capitalists who own the networks that exist today.

You don’t own “web3.”

The VCs and their LPs do. It will never escape their incentives. It’s ultimately a centralized entity with a different label.

Know what you’re getting into…

—jack⚡️ (@jack) December 21, 2021

His comments make it clear that with the status quo, popular blockchains seem a long way from realizing their decentralized dreams. Begging the question, who will really own the future of the Internet?

Will Web3 deliver on its promise?

Even before Moxie and Jack denounced Web3 for becoming what it once tried to replace, there were several incidents that caused many people to question the decentralization of the ecosystem. Take, for example, the case of multiple legacy layer 1 chains. Although many advertise themselves as decentralized, recent events have clearly shown that existing Layer 1 protocols are not truly decentralized.

Whether it’s the Ethereum Infura debacle in 2020, in which the network suffered multiple outages, eventually leading to an “accidental” hard fork due to the mysterious behavior of the core development team, Solana’s ongoing and constant outages, or the AWS outage that brought down dYdX. If you look closely, you will uncover many cases that raise the critical question: Are blockchains truly decentralized today, or is the power that these networks enable still in the hands of a few individuals?

Other than that, Web2 is now at its peak in terms of centralization. From data monitoring and censorship of social media platforms to banning users without valid reasons, there is no shortage of issues that must be resolved by Web3, making it clear that achieving decentralization in the next iteration of the web is more critical than ever.

However, the future remains uncertain due to the seemingly huge and arduous undertaking of ensuring that the next version of the Internet is run by its users. As today’s chains increasingly demand more resources from the people involved, most are either ineligible due to capital constraints or lack the skills or motivation to succeed due to the complexity of managing. a full node.

Layer 1 alternatives are a short-term fix at best

While it is true that Solana, Avalanche, and even Polygon were initially introduced as solutions to the high fees of other blockchains, the change they made came at a cost. Cheap rates, while great for users, are financed by sacrificing decentralization. The Solana network has seen its fair share of bot activity simply because it’s cheap to do so.

But rates won’t stay low forever. In fact, fees on networks like Polygon and Avalanche start to rise as demand increases. It offers a network where users can transact at a lower cost and they will come. Higher demand requires accommodating more transactions in the same block space than before. Over time, users start to compete for block space, leading to increased fees.

Simply creating new Layer 1s that sacrifice decentralization without fixing long-term fees cannot be the answer.

radical rethinking

Scott Galloway also recently launched into criticizing the Web3 bandwagon. And he was right about a couple of things, most notably the lack of diversity in the industry. However, like others, he fell short of coming up with any real ideas on how things could be done differently. Instead of wondering if maybe, one day, everyone would be able to run a server, he simply shrugged off Moxie’s conclusion that “people will never run their own servers.” Then there are also people who say: Why would someone use Web3 if they have to pay for things?

There are no free lunches.

We have become accustomed to not paying with real money. The price we pay now is much higher. We pay with our privacy, we pay with only limited access to information and the type of information that certain institutions want us to see. We pay for not being free.

I think for Web3 to be successful, we first have to rethink the cost that we currently have and what it would be worth if we were actually in control.

We will also have to rethink what we consider a server. Is it true that people will never have their own servers? I totally disagree. Why do we just think that servers as we know them today are not going to change? What makes us think that one day our phones will not be as powerful as a server?

Let’s rethink our assumptions and what we consider to be worth paying for.

Decentralization is a means

Although it often seems that in the blockchain industry the ultimate goal is decentralization. However, I would say that decentralization is a means to an end. Only when a network is truly decentralized can it be censorship resistant.

And when a network is censorship-resistant, information travels freely and people can connect and transfer value without borders. That is why it is such a powerful force. It gives us back the freedom that we currently pay for with Web2.

For Web3 to give people control and provide access without blocking anyone, it has to be decentralized. So decentralized that there is no centralized point of control. Only then will Web3 help realize human potential and enhance freedom.

I believe that if we radically rethink our assumptions, if we challenge the server aspect and foster an environment in which we cooperate to make true decentralization a reality, Web3 will provide us with a better version of the Web as we know it.

This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, readers should do their own research when making a decision.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.