Categories
Business & Society

The Elephant in the Room: Global Inequality and Web3’s Potential

The Elephant in the Room: Global Inequality and Web3's Potential

The elephant curve reveals a blunt reality: inequality is stark reality in the global economy. I couldn't help but wonder if Web3 could help bridge the gap between the wealthy and the struggling. Here's what I discovered. The Elephant Curve chart, created by economist Branko Milanovic, tracks global income growth from 1988 to 2008. It shows two peaks: one for the growing middle class in emerging economies like China and India, and one for the ultra-rich. The dip, or "trunk," shows the struggles of the working and middle classes in developed countries.

In the late 20th century, globalization took off with trade liberalization, new technology, and companies moved parts of their production or services to countries with lower labor costs. This reshaped the global supply chain. Developing nations thrived, creating jobs and lifting millions out of poverty. But in the U.S. and much of Europe, the middle and working classes struggled as manufacturing jobs disappeared, wages stayed flat, and economic security declined. It appears that Sweden's experience with the elephant curve reflects increased income inequality driven by capital gains at the top.

Why care? In short, economic imbalance in society has led to the political and social unrest we see today. Populist movements are increasing, and we are now aware that globalization may not be fair. We need to be vigilant to create a better world.

I thought we had learned something, but the updated elephant curve data, extending to 2016, shows otherwise. After 2008, income growth in emerging economies slowed, and inequality at the top only worsened. The ultra-wealthy aren’t just taking bigger slices of the pie—they’re baking entirely new pies. Between 1980 and 2016, the top 1% captured over 27% of global income growth, while the poorest half of the world barely saw 12%. It’s clear that progress hasn’t been shared equally.

Regionally, the global middle class saw mixed fortunes. In East Asia, rapid industrialization fueled rising incomes, while regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America saw stagnating growth. In advanced economies, the middle class continued to hollow out, with wages often failing to keep up with inflation. Looking ahead to 2050, researchers warn that inequality could either deepen or lessen, depending on the policies we choose today.

I wonder, will economic divides widen, creating a world of prosperity for a few, surrounded by growing discontent? What to do?

Here’s where I see Web3’s true potential. I won’t dive into the usual buzzwords like decentralization, transparency, or community ownership—you know the drill. Web3, the decentralized internet built on blockchain, offers a chance to rethink our economic systems. Unlike today’s internet, controlled by a few powerful corporations, Web3 promises a fairer, more equitable future. Beyond cryptocurrency, Web3 includes DeFi, DAOs, NFTs, and new ways of managing digital ownership, all aiming to break the control of banks, governments, and big tech. Oops, I guess I slipped into the basics after all. I have a distinct feeling that I need to mention memecoins.

I think Trumpcoin and Fartcoin are both a way to gamble but also an urge to try to beat inflation and rising costs. Remember, we live in an era when traditional investments feel inaccessible for many, memecoins invite newcomers into the fight for financial opportunity. At their core, memecoins embody Web3's inclusive values: anyone with internet access can participate. However, the reality is often harsher. The general sentiment is that 70-80% of memecoin investors lose money due to high volatility, scams, or poor timing. For every success story, there are many more of financial losses, often felt most by those who can least afford it.

Anyway, Web3's promise of inclusion raises another crucial question: Could it unintentionally create a technocracy? This is a world where those with early access, technical expertise, or control over blockchain infrastructure hold disproportionate power. The National Bureau of Economic Research shows that the richest 1% of Bitcoin holders control more than 27% of the total supply. This is mirroring traditional financial inequalities. We want to move away from that right!? Similarly, DAOs, while promising on paper, often see decision-making concentrated among a small group of highly engaged or wealthy participants. So, what world are we creating here? The same?

Decentralized finance (DeFi) could open up access to capital, especially in areas with limited banking services. DAOs enable communities to make decisions together, bypassing centralized authorities. Meanwhile, NFT technology has the potential to revolutionize intellectual property rights, giving artists and creators unprecedented control over their work. This is just the beginning of what Web3 could unlock.

But as we build this new system, we must ask: Who benefits? To me, it seems that we are merely replicating the power dynamics of the old system in a shiny new technological wrapper.

To make sure Web3 benefits everyone, we need intentional action. Policymakers must create regulations to protect newcomers from exploitation, developers need to prioritize equity in their designs, and communities must hold power accountable to stop wealth from concentrating. Only then can we unlock Web3’s true potential for all.

We must ask: How can innovations like Web3 help create a fairer economy? Yes, it can—if we ask the right questions while building it. We need to have that conversation.

That’s why I created the Proof of Good Pledge. By signing it, you can join the movement, get rewards, and be part of the solution. Because to me, the elephant curve—where the gap between the haves and the have-nots keeps widening—feels less like a warning and more like a prediction already coming true.

If you're ready to make a difference, sign the pledge and let’s start shaping a fairer future together. Join the conversation here.

Categories
Business & Society

The Idealism of Web3: A Hindrance or a Guiding Light?

The Idealism of Web3: A Hindrance or a Guiding Light?

Web3, with its promises of decentralization, user ownership, and fairness, feels like a vision of a perfect world. A world where power isn’t concentrated in the hands of a few corporations and where diverse voices shape the future of technology. Wonderful! But let’s be honest—this vision can feel overly idealistic, almost impossible to achieve.

The very idea of decentralization, while compelling, raises serious practical challenges. How do you build systems that truly function without central authorities? Honestly, I believe that most founders, regardless of industry, do want to hold control of their project/company. Sometimes we need a reality check. After all, how do you ensure that “everyone” has a say when so many still lack basic internet access or the technical literacy to participate? Web3 technologies are still complex, and the user interface can be frankly terrible. And even within diverse communities, whose voice gets heard the loudest?

These questions are not easy to answer. But I believe they’re worth having a conversation about, because while idealism may feel like a hindrance, it can also be a guiding light. The key lies in balancing lofty aspirations with grounded, practical approaches. In a way, it’s about a dream.

Decentralization
Decentralization sounds great in theory, but implementing it often leads to messy realities. Let’s not kid ourselves—fully decentralized systems can be inefficient, slow, and prone to conflict. Decision-making in a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), for instance, can lead to disagreements or be dominated by those who hold the most tokens, undermining the very principles of fairness and inclusivity.

Similarly, the idea of platforms “working for everyone” is a beautiful goal, but is it truly realistic? Socioeconomic divides, language barriers, and cultural differences make it nearly impossible to design a single system that serves everyone equally. These idealistic values can feel paralyzing, setting goals so high that progress seems unattainable.

Rather than dismissing these ideals as unworkable, what if we treated them as guiding principles rather than rigid blueprints?

“Idealism doesn’t have to mean perfection; it can mean striving to make things better, step by step.”

Pragmatic approaches to idealistic goals
For instance, decentralization doesn’t have to be absolute. Hybrid models—where some aspects are decentralized, while others remain centralized for efficiency—can offer a pragmatic compromise. Why not use a decentralized ledger and a centralized operation management with a heart in the right place?

Similarly, “working for everyone” doesn’t mean solving every inequity overnight. It could mean prioritizing accessibility and building tools that are simple and intuitive. It could also mean focusing on specific underserved communities rather than trying to please the entire world at once. Instead of saying, “We’ll build a platform that works for everyone,” we might say, “We’ll onboard 1,000 underserved users this year and provide them with the tools they need to succeed.”

Striking a balance in the fourth industrial revolution
Handling idealistic values in the Fourth Industrial Revolution requires a delicate balance. On one hand, we need the inspiration of bold ideals to keep us pushing forward. On the other, we must be realistic about what’s achievable in the short term.

I think for Web3 to succeed, we should approach it with humility and flexibility. Let’s be open to feedback, adaptations on designs, and recognizing that progress often comes in baby steps. It also means accepting that no system will ever be perfect, and sharing what didn’t work is just as important as celebrating successes.

When I get idealistic about something I care deeply for, I like to take a step back and see it as a challenge. A challenge to dream big while reminding myself to stay pragmatic. The Fourth Industrial Revolution isn’t going to be shaped by idealism alone, but that doesn’t mean idealism doesn’t have its place.

The heart of Web3
When it comes to Web3, that idealism—creating a project that’s good for society or aiming to improve the world—is messy. It’s full of obstacles, compromises, and tough decisions. But it’s also necessary. Without that vision to guide us, we risk losing the heart of why we’re building in the first place. It’s about holding on to those big dreams while doing the hard work to make them real.

Categories
Business & Society

Why Values Must Be the Core of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Why Values Must Be the Core of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

I believe, strongly, that we’re at a pivotal moment in history. The Fourth Industrial Revolution and its technologies are transforming the way we live, work, and connect. As we try to navigate these societal transformations, one thing is clear: values are not just a nice-to-have; they must be at the heart of everything we build. I say, “Values must be a core feature in the digital era.”

Why Values Matter in Technological Innovation
Values shape how we live in society, and they will define the success or failure of the technological systems we create. Without them, innovation risks becoming cold, impersonal, or even harmful. But when we intentionally embed human values—like fairness, accountability, and transparency—into our systems, technology can become a force for empowerment and trust. Let’s remember:

“Technology reflects who we are.”

It seems that we often get caught up in the "coolness" of new, shiny tools. Let’s build! But remember, we’ve seen how technology without values can leave people behind. In the age of Web2, for example, social media platforms exploded with promise, only to later expose cracks—privacy violations, misinformation, and algorithms that prioritize profit over well-being.

The truth is, problems from previous industrial revolutions still exist because those systems failed to center values. Some people are still unbanked and don’t even have internet access. It didn’t have to become that way, but I think it was a system lacking human-centered values.

Web3: A Second Chance to Build Better Systems
Web3 gives us a second chance. It’s a chance to build digital systems that reflect who we are and what we care about as humans. We have seen the future: a world where creators get fair compensation for their work, where users own their data, and where transparency isn’t just a buzzword but a fundamental design principle. These aren’t just technical features—they’re values in action.

Sure, some people don’t care. But I have a feeling that many of us are tired of feeling powerless in the face of technological giants. Web3 promises to give power back to individuals and communities. However, decentralization on its own doesn’t guarantee fairness. That’s why it’s crucial to design these systems with trust, inclusivity, and accountability baked in from the start. Values.

If we want Web3 projects to serve everyone, we need to actively consider issues like accessibility. Who gets to participate in this new economy? Who benefits from it? Designing for inclusion isn’t automatic; it’s a value-driven choice.

The Risks of Ignoring Values
When we treat values like annoying things to fix later, we risk creating systems that exclude, exploit, or harm people—again. But when we treat values as features, we get something mindfully transformative. I know it may not sound as sexy as the PornRocket token , but prioritizing fairness and shared ownership is good for society. We need to remind ourselves that code doesn’t build a better society—values do.

Creating a Future That Works for Everyone
If we embed human values into our technology, we can create a world where innovation works for everyone. But it’s not going to happen by accident. Regulators, developers, and users like you and me need to push for systems that reflect what we believe in. I say fairness, inclusion, and sustainability is a start. Let’s start that conversation today.

Categories
Business & Society

2024: The Year Bitcoin Took Center Stage—Except in Sweden

2024: The Year Bitcoin Took Center Stage—Except in Sweden

Two years ago, most people outside the crypto world thought Bitcoin was experiencing yet another death. Multiple bankruptcies in the crypto lending industry had left the market in turmoil, and Bitcoin was swiftly dismissed as a risky, crime-ridden asset plagued by scams. But in 2024, Bitcoin proved many wrong. It didn’t just bounce back again—it surged, transforming from a niche asset into a global force that's now reshaping the landscape of finance and politics in forward-thinking countries.

It wasn’t just a year of recovery—it was the year Bitcoin became a cornerstone of modern financial strategy. From ETFs to political endorsements, the story of Bitcoin in 2024 is one of legitimacy and momentum.

The rise of Bitcoin ETFs
When the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved 11 Bitcoin spot ETFs in January 2024, it changed everything. These ETFs made owning Bitcoin as simple as buying a stock, removing the barriers that kept many investors at bay. In less than 12 months, these funds outpaced U.S. gold ETFs in assets under management, proving the hunger for Bitcoin among institutional and retail investors alike.

I think this accessibility has been the real game-changer. Bitcoin ownership in the United States already stood at 28 million users—about 13.8% of the population. But the ETFs gave a broader range of people a way to join in, whether they were casual investors or massive asset managers like BlackRock and Fidelity. The U.S., while third in the total number of Bitcoin owners, leads the world in Bitcoin trading volume and saw record flows into these ETFs.

Globally, the numbers are even more staggering. India leads the pack with 75 million Bitcoin users, followed by China with 38 million. And smaller nations like the UAE and Vietnam boast the highest percentages of cryptocurrency ownership, at 30.4% and 21.2% of their populations, respectively.

This highlights a crucial trend: Bitcoin is no longer just for tech enthusiasts or the financially elite. It’s becoming a universal asset, though its use and significance differ widely across regions.

Bitcoin entangled with national interests
Here’s a fact that might surprise you: the U.S. government is the largest institutional holder of Bitcoin, with 207,189 BTC—worth over $19 billion at current prices. Most of this comes from seizures related to criminal activity, but it underscores a larger point: Bitcoin is becoming entangled with national interests. Yesterday I heard that even Canada will likely become Bitcoin-friendly with a new administration.

While the U.S. has embraced Bitcoin ETFs and holds the top spot in trading volume, it lags behind countries like India and China in individual ownership. This divide shows how Bitcoin’s adoption is shaped by geography, population size, and local attitudes. For instance, in places like the UAE and Vietnam, Bitcoin’s appeal lies in its ability to provide financial sovereignty in volatile or underbanked economies. In the U.S., it’s more about speculation, investment, and, increasingly, policy.

Donald Trump’s pro-crypto pivot
If someone told me a few years ago that Donald Trump would become Bitcoin’s biggest cheerleader, I’d have called it a joke. Back in 2019, he dismissed crypto as a scam. But in 2024, Trump’s transformation into a crypto advocate has been nothing short of extraordinary—and market-shifting.

Trump ran his 2024 campaign on a boldly pro-crypto platform, vowing to make the U.S. “the crypto capital of the planet.” This wasn’t just talk. His administration-in-waiting features crypto-friendly figures, such as Paul Atkins, tapped to lead the SEC, and Bo Hines, a 29-year-old slated to head a new presidential advisory council on digital assets.

The promises were sweeping: creating a national Bitcoin reserve, opposing a U.S. central bank digital currency (CBDC), and streamlining regulations for crypto trading and token sales. While the details remain murky, the market responded with enthusiasm. Bitcoin surged past $107,000, with a market cap exceeding $2 trillion, while the broader crypto ecosystem soared to $3.7 trillion. Even XRP finally rose over 300% and is looking at a bright future.

What makes Trump’s pivot particularly impactful is the political backing it has resulted in. Crypto-friendly candidates now dominate the House of Representatives, and the industry poured $245 million into the 2024 election. Trump’s embrace of Bitcoin has turned a once-contentious technology into a centerpiece of U.S. economic and financial strategy.

Filling gaps in traditional finance
What’s fascinating about Bitcoin in 2024 is how it’s filling gaps that traditional financial systems can’t. In a world increasingly defined by geopolitical tensions and economic fragmentation, Bitcoin is emerging as a lifeline. For nations, it’s a hedge against sanctions or asset freezes. For individuals in countries with unstable currencies, it’s a way to preserve wealth.

Take India, for example, with 75 million users—the highest globally. For many in India and other emerging markets, Bitcoin isn’t just an investment; it’s a necessity in navigating financial instability. Meanwhile, in the UAE and Vietnam, Bitcoin’s adoption rates reflect a growing desire for digital financial tools in rapidly modernizing economies.

Even in the U.S., where Bitcoin is more about portfolio diversification, the cultural shift is clear. More people are seeing Bitcoin not just as a speculative asset but as a legitimate alternative to traditional stores of value like gold.

Beyond halving events
For years, Bitcoin’s price followed a predictable pattern tied to its halving events—a spike, a crash, and a long recovery. But 2024 showed that the halving event was a non-factor in terms of the price of Bitcoin. Now, it’s real-world forces like institutional adoption, regulatory clarity, and political endorsements that seem to drive the market.

This isn’t without its risks. The influx of institutional money has brought a slight stability, but also the potential for bigger crashes if things go south. Leveraged purchases and speculative euphoria could lead to sharp corrections, especially as the market adjusts to the realities of a pro-Bitcoin administration in the U.S.

Sweden: an outlier in crypto adoption
Despite Stockholm’s reputation as a fintech hub, cryptocurrency adoption in Sweden is relatively low compared to global trends. A recent survey by K33 Research and EY found that only 7% of the adult population—about 550,000 Swedes—have invested in crypto. This adoption skews heavily toward younger demographics, with nearly half of investors under 30 and another 40% between 30 and 50 years old. Urban centers like Stockholm show slightly higher ownership rates at 10%, but the traditional finance sector and government remain hesitant to embrace the technology.

Sweden’s cautious stance is further reflected in its focus on centralized solutions, like the e-krona pilot, while largely ignoring the broader potential of blockchain and decentralized finance. Yes, some industry players in finance, accounting, and real estate have noticed the possibilities of blockchain technology, but this contrasts sharply with countries like the UAE and Vietnam, where Bitcoin adoption is fueled by its promise of financial sovereignty, or the U.S., where pro-crypto policies are reshaping financial markets. Singapore is also embracing the fourth industrial revolution with clearer regulations during 2024.

Yet, I am optimistic: 20% of Swedes expressed interest in acquiring crypto within the next decade, signaling a slow but potential shift in attitudes. For now, though, Sweden stands apart—a cashless society hesitant to dive into cryptocurrency.

Looking ahead to 2025
As we head into 2025, the big question is whether this global momentum can be sustained. Will policies catch up to the hype? Will Bitcoin’s role in national reserves expand? I think so. One thing is clear: 2024 was the year Bitcoin became part of the global fabric—and it’s not going back.

Categories
Business & Society

Web3 för nybörjare: Vad är det och varför borde vi i Sverige bry oss?

Web3 för nybörjare: Vad är det och varför borde vi i Sverige bry oss?

Web3 – det nya begreppet som ofta dyker upp i samtal om framtidens internet. Men vad är det egentligen? Och varför borde vi i Sverige, ett land som länge har varit ledande inom innovation och digitalisering, lägga märke till det?

Web3, eller det "tredje internet", är ett koncept där internet blir decentraliserat med hjälp av blockkedjeteknologi. Tänk dig ett internet där du som användare har full kontroll över dina egna data och digitala tillgångar – utan att behöva förlita dig på stora techjättar som Google eller Facebook. Det handlar om att skapa en rättvisare och mer transparent digital värld där makten ligger i användarens händer, inte i centraliserade företag.

Så varför borde vi i Sverige bry oss? För det första har vi en lång historia av att omfamna ny teknik. Dessutom pågår den fjärde industriella revolutionen och Sverige vill inte komma efter i den globala utvecklingen. Det som oroar är en tydlig skepticism mot kryptovalutor och blockkedjeteknologi – många associerar det felaktigt endast med bedrägerier och spekulation. Jag kommer bemöta detta i senare artiklar. Vad många missar är att Web3 inte bara handlar om kryptovalutor. Det handlar om smarta lösningar som kan revolutionera allt från hur vi röstar online till hur vi delar energi eller lagrar personliga data. Det är en rörelse som handlar om tillit, transparens och ökad tillgång till samhällsviktiga digitala tjänster. Allt som Sverige i sak håller kärt.

I ett samhälle som Sverige, där jämlikhet och transparens är centrala värden, kan Web3 öppna dörren för nya sätt att tänka kring demokrati, hållbarhet och entreprenörskap.

Det kan ge mindre företag möjlighet att konkurrera på lika villkor och erbjuda medborgarna mer insyn i beslutsprocesser.

Men här är utmaningen som jag ser det: Kunskapen om Web3 är låg. Enligt undersökningar äger endast 7 procent av svenskar kryptovalutor, och majoriteten av befolkningen avfärdar ämnet som irrelevant. Det är ett tankefel vi inte har råd med.

Om Sverige ska fortsätta att vara en ledande kraft inom teknologi och innovation, behöver vi ta oss tid att förstå och engagera oss i Web3. Det är inte bara framtiden – det är redan här. Frågan är: Vill vi vara med och forma den?

Vad tycker du? Är Sverige redo att omfamna Web3, eller riskerar vi att stå vid sidlinjen medan andra länder tar ledningen?

Categories
Business & Society

Are All Altcoins Just Fancy Memecoins? Murad Mahmudov’s Bold Claim Under the Microscope

Are All Altcoins Just Fancy Memecoins? Murad Mahmudov’s Bold Claim Under the Microscope

Influencers want attention, but Murad Mahmudov’s assertion that "all altcoins are essentially memecoins, just more complex versions" really grabbed my attention. On the surface, it’s a compelling argument. Many altcoins are hyped on social media, their value driven by communities, memes, and speculation, rather than any inherent technological value. It's easy to see how someone could group them all together. But hold on a minute—there’s more to this claim than meets the eye.

Let’s be clear: Mahmudov isn’t entirely wrong. The cryptocurrency space is sick of altcoins that have unclear value propositions, relying more on hype than real-world utility. Many of these projects—often powered by little more than memes—are certainly speculative in nature. It’s a reality check we all need, reminding us to think twice before we invest. But here’s where I take issue with his argument: reducing all altcoins to Fartcoin is an oversimplification that risks clouding people’s understanding of this diverse and complex space.

Take XRP, for example. Mahmudov mentioned tokens like XRP and Cardano in his interview on Coin Bureau, branding them as “complex memecoins.” But this is where his argument begins to fall apart. XRP is not just a speculative asset; it powers the XRP Ledger, a blockchain designed to solve real-world problems with cross-border payments. XRP is used to close the gap between different currencies, enabling faster and low-cost transactions—a far cry from the meme-driven antics of Fartcoin. Yes, it’s true that XRP is yet to blossom fully and still faces regulatory hurdles, but calling it a memecoin outright dismisses the substantial infrastructure and genuine utility that’s being built globally around it.

And then there’s Cardano. This is a project that has been meticulously developed, with a foundation rooted in academic research and peer-reviewed processes. Yes, it’s a blockchain that is academically researched before launch. Cardano’s goal is to create a scalable, secure, and sustainable blockchain ecosystem for decentralized applications, with ADA as the token that powers it all. To call it a memecoin undermines the years of rigorous development and the ambitious vision behind it. There’s real value here, not just speculation. Moreover, Cardano’s founder, Charles Hoskinson, has been actively involved in policy discussions, positioning himself as a key figure in the future of blockchain technology. Surely, this isn’t the work of a memecoin.

Now, I can agree with Mahmudov on one thing: the crypto space is filled with speculative tokens. There are projects out there that exist mainly as speculative assets with little to no practical value. But the crypto market is far from monolithic. By lumping all altcoins into the same category as memecoins, Mahmudov risks distorting the public’s understanding of what cryptocurrencies can really achieve. Newcomers to the cryptocurrency field and the casual observer, already overwhelmed by the noise of the market, could easily mistake XRP, Cardano, and other serious projects for the latest meme coin to trend on social media. This only adds to the confusion in an already complex and rapidly evolving fourth industrial revolution.

The core issue here is this: Mahmudov’s critique, while valid in many cases, brushes aside the real-world innovations taking place in the blockchain space. He’s right to point out the role of community and speculation in driving the value of many tokens, but this doesn’t mean that all altcoins lack technological substance. The reality is that some projects—like XRP and Cardano—are laying the groundwork for blockchain to be used in ways that could change entire industries.

In short, Murad Mahmudov’s statement about altcoins and memecoins is far from the full story. Yes, there are plenty of projects driven by hype and community speculation, but to call all altcoins “fancy memecoins” is a disservice to the innovation happening in this space. Cryptocurrencies like XRP and Cardano are not just speculative bets; they’re part of a broader movement that could change the future for a broad number of sectors in society.

If we’re going to have a meaningful conversation about the future of cryptocurrency, we need to look beyond surface-level labels and dig deeper into what these tokens really represent.

Categories
Business & Society

How to Use the Proof of Good Framework to Build Impactful Web3 Projects

How to Use the Proof of Good Framework to Build Impactful Web3 Projects

The Proof of Good Framework is a practical, flexible tool designed to help Web3 projects achieve their goals while also delivering real societal value. Here’s a step-by-step guide to implementing this framework, specifically made to founders looking to blend profitability with purpose. Yes, the framework is simple to adapt, regardless of your project’s size or focus.

I believe Web3 projects could really benefit from having a framework to help them assess the potential impact their work might have on society. It’s important that this framework is both practical and realistic… That’s why I created it!

Here’s how you can get started.

Step 1: Focus on the pillars that align with your goals

The framework includes multiple pillars that address societal needs, such as inclusivity, transparency, privacy, and sustainability. Don’t feel pressured to tackle every pillar at once. Start with those that align best with your goals and build from there.

Example: A DeFi platform might start by focusing on equity and accessibility to make financial tools available to underserved communities. By narrowing the scope, you can create impact without overextending resources.

Step 2: Use the framework’s guiding questions to identify areas of improvement

Each pillar includes targeted questions to help founders identify areas where societal impact can be strengthened. This is where the framework’s adaptability shines—apply the questions to your project’s core areas and adjust as you go.

Example Question: From the Equity and Inclusivity pillar, ask, “Who benefits from my project’s success?” If the answer is limited to well-resourced users, consider expanding accessibility by lowering fees or simplifying onboarding.

Step 3: Start small improvements

The Proof of Good Framework isn’t about a major overhaul. Begin with small, manageable changes based on your findings, which will gradually bring your project closer to public-good principles.

Example Improvement: If your equity review shows that fees exclude lower-income users, try a tiered fee structure or offer discounts to first-time users. These incremental adjustments allow for sustained growth aligned with societal values.

Step 4: Reassess regularly

Web3 evolves fast. Make it a practice to revisit the framework quarterly or after each major milestone. Regular assessments keep your project aligned with both user needs and public-good principles.

Example Process: After launching a feature, review the Privacy and Data Security pillar to ensure that user data remains protected. This regular check-in helps build trust and keeps your project responsive to evolving expectations.

Step 5: Communicate your commitment

It’s a win-win situation. The Proof of Good Framework also helps showcase your values. Share your progress with users, investors, and partners to demonstrate your commitment to transparency and social impact.

Example of Sharing: Publish a quarterly report or blog post detailing your progress on the framework’s pillars, such as reductions in transaction fees or new privacy features. This openness builds credibility and attracts like-minded supporters.

Let’s take the first step

Starting with the Proof of Good Framework doesn’t require a complete transformation, just the willingness to explore and answer a few core questions. Begin with, “Who benefits from my project’s success?” and “How are we ensuring transparency and accessibility?”

The Proof of Good Framework is here to guide you, whether as a conversation starter or a full roadmap, making impactful Web3 projects achievable for founders of all types. Let’s build a digital future that’s not just profitable, but meaningful.

Categories
Business & Society

Oracles: A Solution to Web3’s Determinism, or Just Another Trap?

Oracles: A Solution to Web3’s Determinism, or Just Another Trap?

Is Web3 genuinely breaking new ground, or are we just recreating old systems with shinier tools? Smart contracts and oracles promise a decentralized internet that serves the people, but are they leading us toward a more equitable digital landscape—or just spinning another hype narrative? Let’s take a look.

Smart contracts, hyped as the autonomous engines of Web3, are designed to execute automatically based on pre-programmed conditions. Their deterministic nature means that they operate on strict logic: if X happens, then do Y. In theory, this efficiency can streamline processes like aid distribution, bypassing traditional red tape. But I would say they are more simple than smart.

Here’s the problem: real-world issues rarely fit neatly into “if-this-then-that” conditions. Human needs evolve, and social challenges shift unexpectedly, and rigid code rarely adapts without an external input. For example, imagine an international relief aid organization that runs smart contracts that sends aid without considering what happens in the world.

This is where I see the value of oracles. Oracles provide a feed of live, real-world data, feeding smart contracts with the context they lack. While smart contracts operate within their coded boundaries, oracles allow them to respond to changes like weather shifts, public health metrics, or even the latest local news. For example, during a natural disaster, an oracle could detect rising water levels or weather reports, relaying this data to a smart contract tasked with deploying emergency funds. The contract could then release resources in response to these conditions, making relief far more timely and responsive.

Oracles undeniably offer a solution to the limitations of (dumb) smart contracts. They create a bridge between the digital and physical worlds, allowing Web3 to feel more grounded and less robotic. In a sense, they allow technology to “listen” to our world. But we need to stay aware of the problems with oracles.

We can’t ignore the “oracle problem”—the challenge of ensuring that the data oracles provide is trustworthy. I hear concerns about manipulation: if an oracle feeds incorrect or biased data into a smart contract, the entire system could be compromised, causing harm in sensitive areas like healthcare, emergency aid, or social services.

And then there’s the question of control. If a smart contract is only as good as the data it’s fed, who controls the oracle, and who determines which sources are “truthful”? The influence of these data providers could create a new form of centralization within a system that claims to be decentralized. If we’re not careful, oracles might simply shift the problem of centralized control from one place to another, undermining Web3’s vision of true autonomy.

As much as oracles can enhance Web3’s adaptability, they don’t eliminate the need for a human-centered approach. Just as Ethereum, Solana, and other Web3 platforms flirt with decentralization yet remain controlled by a few key players, oracles could easily become another layer of the same centralization, albeit wrapped in new technical jargon. As I see it, Web3’s promise of decentralization will ring hollow if we don’t ground these technologies in human values—equity, accountability, and the public good.

It’s too easy to get swept up in the hype that every new project will “change the world.” The reality is that technology alone won’t drive societal transformation; it’s the underlying principles and governance structures that will either foster inclusivity and fairness or perpetuate the same monopolies of Web2. In fact, if we allow technology to change society, without human interaction, we will likely see the end of humanity.

We need to ask hard questions of every Web3 initiative: Who benefits? Is it primarily the investors and developers, while users remain mere participants? If so, it’s likely that these projects are more about chasing profits than transforming society. It’s worth repeating.

“While technology builds the infrastructure, human values are the blueprints for the future.”

Even as we innovate, we have to remember that a better world requires that these technologies—yes, even smart contracts—adapt over time to evolving human values. Without this adaptability, they’re just programs, not solutions.

Oracles might hold the key to breaking free from Web3's deterministic confines, yet their true potential is based on more than just technological prowess. It’s how we choose to govern and ground these innovations in genuine human values that will determine their impact. Will we stand for transparency, equity, and accountability? Or will we let profit motives lead us back to centralized control under a new costume? For Web3 to build a better world, we need more than code; we need a community ready to uphold the values that technology alone can’t encode.

Categories
Business & Society

Web3’s Hype-Driven Promise: Following the Money or Shaping a Better World?

Is Web3 a hype train toward a better world, or are we headed back to the same Silicon Valley model? Promising to decentralize the internet and put power back into the hands of individuals, Web3 offers bold visions of a future without intermediaries. But here’s the hard truth: as exciting as Web3’s promise is, much of the industry is still following the money.

Ethereum, Solana, and Binance Smart Chain are examples of this trend. These platforms, with their innovative approaches to decentralization, are making a strong impact on the digital world. Good and bad. Ethereum’s transition to proof-of-stake is aimed at making the system more efficient and eco-friendly, while Solana boasts about its speed and low fees. But when I scratch beneath the surface, I see they’re also platforms where whales have significant control. What about Binance Smart Chain? It’s technically decentralized, but with Binance's heavy influence, it raises questions about whether it truly breaks free from the centralized model we’re trying to escape. Are we going back to Web2 Silicon Valley?

 It’s far too easy to get caught up in the hype-driven nature of Web3, where every new project promises to be a game-changer. The word revolutionary is truly clichéd.

 Here’s the problem. If we’re not careful, we’ll just be repeating the patterns of platform capitalism that turned Web2 giants like Facebook into the monopolies they are today. Without a deliberate effort to ground these platforms in human-centered values, Web3 risks becoming a new arena for the same old power dynamics—driven by profit, not by societal good.

As we race to build this new decentralized world, we need to ask ourselves: Are these projects really about creating a better world, or are they just about profit in a new form? Sure, we want profit, but the fourth industrial revolution is also about creating a better world through the use of technology.

 When we evaluate whether a Web3 project is good for the world, we need to ask the following question: Who benefits from this platform’s success? If the answer is only investors and developers, while users remain passive or marginalized, it’s likely that the project is more about following the money than transforming society.

 "Technology is a tool, but values are the architects of the future."

 Even smart contracts need to adapt to evolving values over time to contribute to a better world. Therefore, they require human oversight to truly remain 'smart.'

As I see it, the challenge for Web3 is to not let hype and profit drive its evolution. If we want this technology to truly transform society for the better, we need projects that prioritize equity, sustainability, and human-centered governance. Otherwise, Web3 risks becoming yet another chapter in the book of capitalist control, wrapped in a cover of decentralization. Maybe I’ll write it.

Categories
Business & Society

Web3: Can It Live Up to Its Philosophical Promise?

I think it’s refreshing that the conversation around Web3 has grown beyond technical specifications and market hype. At its core, Web3 represents a philosophy—a vision of a decentralized internet that promises to put control back into the hands of individuals. But, while this idea sounds liberating, I keep raising the question: what kind of world are we truly building? If we don’t think critically about its foundational principles, Web3 could just replicate the inequalities and power imbalances it aims to disrupt.

For those unfamiliar, Web3’s principles are deeply rooted in libertarian ideals, emphasizing personal autonomy, minimal centralized control, and freedom of choice. This has a potentially vast societal impact. I would say it's a digital extension of the philosophies championed by thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Robert Nozick. In short, it’s a system where everyone has a voice, and no single entity holds excessive power. But we’ve seen how ideals often collide with reality. Even in early Web3 projects, those with technical know-how or early financial stakes wield disproportionate influence over governance and decision-making.

This disconnect raises a crucial question: Is libertarianism alone enough to achieve the equitable, democratic society Web3 envisions?

I believe the answer lies in integrating another very interesting philosophical framework. Yes, it will change how you think about the shaping society.

John Rawls, a political philosopher argued for fairness through the “veil of ignorance.”

Picture this: you’re designing a new society, but you don’t know where you’ll end up—rich or poor, powerful or powerless. How would you build a system if you knew you might be among the least advantaged? This interesting thought experiment forces us to prioritize fairness, crafting rules that protect everyone, not just a privileged few.

For Web3, this mindset shift is vital. If we build decentralized systems assuming we might be the least powerful participant, we’re more likely to create structures that treat every user equitably, regardless of their wealth or technical expertise. This means reexamining early token distributions, implementing safeguards against power concentration, and ensuring that governance mechanisms are truly democratic, not just in theory but in practice. I say that this is truly a philosophy perfectly suited for economic and social development aiming to provide financial services to the world’s poorest via web3 technologies.

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are a case in point. Often hailed as the democratic engines of Web3, DAOs promise to give everyone a voice in decision-making. But in practice, a handful of active participants typically hold sway, mirroring the same voter apathy and power centralization seen in real-world democracies. To live up to their potential, DAOs need to incentivize broader participation and actively seek to include diverse voices, especially those historically left out.

Check out my new book; What World are Creating: The Impact of Web3 on Society and Well-Being 

Likewise, wealth inequality is another growing concern in Web3. Early adopters often amass significant power simply by virtue of being first. This parallels libertarian economies, where wealth and power tend to concentrate in the hands of those already in control. Here, Rawls’ “difference principle” could offer a guiding light: any inequalities that arise should work to benefit the least advantaged members of the network. That could mean limiting token ownership or distributing governance power more equitably.

Web3 was born from a desire to dismantle centralized control, but we need to remember that decentralization alone does not guarantee fairness. If we’re not careful, we risk creating a digital oligarchy, where a small group of “whales” holds the lion’s share of power. To prevent this, we must build systems that balance individual freedom with social equity.

For Web3 to succeed, it must move beyond pure libertarianism and embrace a balanced approach. It’s time to think beyond the thrill of disruption and ask ourselves: What kind of digital society are we designing? We should build with an eye toward fairness, creating structures that benefit all users, not just the tech-savvy or the financially powerful. Only then can Web3 truly live up to its promise.

It’s a philosophical question that demands our attention. After all, the future of the internet shouldn’t just be decentralized—it should be just.