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.