Tag: web3

Categories
web3

Web3: The Marketplace of Human Experience

Web3: The Marketplace of Human Experience

The future we’re heading toward isn’t problem-free—it just accelerates us into new ones. We used to live in a world where some things just existed. A home was a place to live. A hobby was something you did for fun. A friendship was a connection, not a commodity. But somewhere along the way, that changed.

Airbnb turned homes into investments, and Instagram turned our lives into personal brands. Sorry, but LinkedIn turned networking into content marketing.

Now, we want Web3 to push this development even further.

In Web3, our attention is an asset. It’s scary, but mine and your reputation is an asset, and so are our relationships. Sure, our humanness has always been our most valuable asset in living, but now we are making this increasingly tradable.

Last week, I touched upon the issue that our soul seems to be getting tradable. Nothing just is anymore. Now, even our attention has a price.

Web3 was supposed to be different. It promised to break free from the systems of Web2, where tech giants profited from our data and behavior. But instead of dismantling the machine, we seem to just be rebuilding it—only this time, it’s decentralized. Now, instead of companies monetizing us, we’re doing it to ourselves.

I am not saying that monetization is inherently bad. Ownership, transparency, and financial autonomy are all much-needed shifts. The problem is when everything becomes an asset, when every interaction carries an economic weight. When engaging in a community isn’t about belonging but about speculation. When our online presence isn’t just an extension of who we are but a portfolio to be optimized.

As an author, I live and breathe the stressful and frankly demotivating effect of living in a world where art (writing) is supposed to be optimized for sales. In an era where everything is commodified, art for art’s sake isn’t a luxury—it’s essential to preserving our humanity. This shift extends beyond writing—musicians sell royalties as NFTs, DAOs monetize collaborative work, and even digital artists face pressure to tokenize their creativity. Web3 could empower creators, but will it free them or simply make them optimize even more?

When technology is designed primarily to serve capitalist structures, efficiency and profit take priority over our well-being. Algorithms push us to work more, hustle harder, and engage in an endless cycle of self-optimization. Rest becomes laziness. Hobbies become side hustles. Even social interactions are filtered through a lens of networking and opportunity.

We are running toward a world where value is no longer just about meaning, connection, or fulfillment—but about liquidity. About what can be bought, sold, staked, or flipped.

This isn’t just a Web3 problem—it’s a cultural one. If Web3 is truly to be a break from the past, it can’t just decentralize who profits—it must redefine what sound progress means. Perhaps there’s a way Web3 can shift the focus from pure monetization to sustainability, creativity, and genuine human connection.

I am sure we want to use technology to create a world beyond just decentralized hyper-financialization.

I don’t have to say that we all like profit. The question is: Are we doing our best to create tools for empowerment? Or just new ways to turn life itself into a marketplace?

Categories
web3

Tokenized Everything: Are We Selling Our Souls to Web3?

Tokenized Everything: Are We Selling Our Souls to Web3?

Web3 was supposed to set us free. You know the gist! Decentralization, financial empowerment, ownership. All big words, big promises. The idea was simple: take back control from banks, tech giants, and middlemen who profit from our data and hard-earned money. But are we missing what is slowly happening? Web3 seems to be turning every aspect of our lives into an asset to be bought, sold, or speculated on. We need to be aware of the world we are creating.

It started with real estate. Platforms like Lofty allow anyone to buy fractions of rental properties, turning homeownership into a tradable token. Then Gucci and Louis Vuitton launched digital fashion NFTs that blur the line between collectible and commodity. At first, I thought this seemed relatively harmless. If anything, it was just an extension of what already existed in traditional markets.

But then, people started selling access to themselves. Influencers tokenized their time, offering personal video calls and direct messages in exchange for crypto and fiat. Some projects introduced “social tokens,” where buying a share of someone’s token gives you privileges, like an investment, but in a person instead of a company. Even engagement on social media has become monetized, with users rewarded in tokens simply for paying attention. Money, money, money…

At some point, we must ask: what’s left? If everything is tokenized, does anything have value beyond its price tag?

The idea that Web3 would create a new digital economy was always part of the plan. I hear asset tokenization is expected to reach $5 trillion by 2030. Traditional institutions are already exploring ways to integrate blockchain into finance, real estate, and healthcare. But as we rush to turn everything into a marketplace, it’s worth asking what kind of world we’re building. Are we creating a future of empowerment, or simply hyper-capitalism where every interaction has a price? To be frank, even likes on social media have turned into a transaction of value. If I like you, you like me.

Web3 promised us ownership, but it never quite defined what we should own. Really think about it. If we’re not careful, we might wake up in a world where everything is for sale—including the things that were never meant to be for sale. Don’t get me wrong. I am fascinated by Web3 technology and what it can bring to society. I’m even bullish on it.

But what is priceless in our world? I would say that our trust, our lives, and our souls should be priceless. How can we trust it’s genuine and not just profit-driven when we start tokenizing our (digital) lives, including our identity, values, and humanness? Put differently, would you trust me if every aspect of me was always on sale?

I do not have all the answers, but these questions need to be raised as we embrace Web3 technology. So, what do you think? Are we tokenizing a bright future or just putting a price tag on things that were once priceless?

Categories
web3

What Web3 Can Learn from Past Industrial Revolutions

What Web3 Can Learn from Past Industrial Revolutions

History reminds us that no industrial revolution—from the steam engine to the assembly line—has been solely defined by its economic potential. Each era of transformation has eventually bent toward addressing deeper human needs, whether through labor reforms or environmental considerations. As I look at the Web3 space, while profit remains a powerful catalyst, societal values will ultimately shape its trajectory. Soon.

Web3 holds great promise
Blockchain technology, decentralized finance (DeFi), and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) promise unprecedented levels of efficiency, transparency, and inclusivity. But let’s be honest. These systems are being built with the same profit-driven logic that fueled past revolutions. Just as mechanized textile production slashed costs during the First Industrial Revolution, blockchain platforms aim to streamline global transactions, reduce intermediaries, and unlock new markets. More money is created to address inefficiencies left by previous industrial shifts.

We are witnessing the migration of physical assets onto digital ledgers. Real estate, art, intellectual property—these are just some examples of tangible goods being tokenized for easier trade and management. Financial instruments such as stablecoins and liquidity pools offer investors access to previously inaccessible opportunities. This shift mirrors earlier eras when railroads connected distant markets or electricity powered factories. We did this to enable exponential growth. However, much like those transformations, Web3's initial focus on profit overlooks critical questions about equity, ethics, and sustainability.

Lessons from history
History does not repeat, but it sure seems to rhyme. The consequences of unchecked profit-seeking are clear. During the First Industrial Revolution, mechanization brought immense wealth but also dehumanizing working conditions. Factories turned workers into "cogs in a machine," subjecting them to grueling hours and unsafe environments. Similarly, the Second Industrial Revolution's emphasis on mass production further centralized power, leaving many marginalized. Let me tell you, working in the Ford factory in New Jersey in 1913 was no picnic.

It wasn't until widespread social unrest and advocacy movements forced governments and industries to reconsider their priorities that meaningful reforms emerged. Labor laws, safety regulations, and fair wages became cornerstones of modern employment practices. Likewise, the environmental crises of the mid-20th century prompted a reevaluation of industrial growth, leading to policies aimed at preserving natural resources and promoting sustainability.

Moreover, the push for regulation highlights a broader truth: societies tend to respond reactively rather than proactively. We often wait for crises to unfold before implementing solutions. In the public health field, we have started to consider the health consequences of letting companies freely produce and market unhealthy foods. In this discussion, the crashes of FTX and Terra Luna serve as wake-up calls, forcing us to confront the limitations of unregulated markets. By learning from these failures, we can be smarter in the Web3 ecosystem.

The role of regulation
These incidents underscore a growing demand for regulation—a socially constructed need born out of necessity. Governments around the world are now scrambling to establish frameworks that protect consumers while fostering innovation. After all, few would board an airplane without confidence in aviation safety standards.

Regulation in Web3 is not merely a bureaucratic imposition; I say it reflects society's evolving understanding of what constitutes sensible innovation. Much like labor laws were crafted to address exploitation in previous industrial revolutions, regulatory measures in Web3 aim to safeguard against fraud, manipulation, and environmental harm. For instance, concerns about the energy consumption of proof-of-work blockchains have already spurred shifts toward more sustainable alternatives like proof-of-stake, and a growing part of Bitcoin mining is powered by green energy.

Glimmers of hope in Web3 projects
Already, we see glimmers of hope in projects focused on environmental sustainability, financial inclusion, and community empowerment. Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are experimenting with governance models that prioritize collective decision-making. Tokenized carbon credits are incentivizing climate action. Microfinance platforms are extending credit to underserved populations worldwide. This is great.

Yet, the future of Web3 lies at the intersection of technological advancement and human-centered values. Take real-world assets, for example. As physical assets continue to go online, they will increasingly be managed in ways that align with sound environmental values and social justice. In the traditional financial sector, these are called ESG funds, sustainable funds, and responsible investment funds. Banks optimizing cross-border transactions will do so with energy-smart, low-cost, and efficient blockchain technology. Some companies tokenizing real estate will ensure more equitable distribution of benefits. Investors trading NFTs may support artists who contribute positively to their communities. These opportunities are unique in this industrial revolution.

Learning from the past
In a way, it is frustrating that we seem to be repeating past mistakes, but we can address them earlier than we did before. Like previous industrial revolutions, Web3 will evolve through trial and error, shaped largely by market forces. But if history teaches us anything, it is that profit alone cannot sustain progress. People and our values can.

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
web3

Launching the Proof of Good Framework: Guiding Web3 Toward a Better Future

Launching the Proof of Good Framework: Guiding Web3 Toward a Better Future

Web3 founders are increasingly under pressure to consider the societal impact of their projects. While the decentralized web holds the promise of an open, accessible digital world where communities have more control and power is more fairly distributed, Web3’s rapid growth has also revealed serious pitfalls. Investors, communities, and organizations are closely examining the social effects of these technologies, expecting more from those who develop them.

Without clear guidance, founders often find themselves wondering: how can they create a genuinely positive impact without losing sight of their vision or overburdening their teams? The need for a roadmap that balances innovation with social responsibility has never been clearer.

This is why I created the Proof of Good Framework, a flexible, step-by-step guide designed to help Web3 founders prioritize public good while still building profitable, sustainable projects. The framework isn’t just a set of vague principles; it’s an adaptable yet impactful tool, crafted to meet the demands and limitations of fast-moving start-ups. Its accessibility means that founders, whether seasoned or new, can navigate it without needing a team of specialists. With the rising pressure on projects to be “good citizens” of the digital world, this framework is as timely as it is necessary.

It is truly inspiring to see the potential of Web3 unfolding. However, it is also clear that founders are facing a dual challenge: creating cutting-edge products that deliver on their promises and ensuring these products don’t replicate the very problems Web3 set out to solve. Many early projects, despite noble intentions, have unintentionally reinforced the inequalities they aimed to break down. Countless stories exist of projects that claimed to democratize access, only to end up benefiting those with deep technical knowledge or financial resources.

This is where the Proof of Good Framework makes a difference. Designed with these real challenges in mind, it provides essential guidance for founders who want to address critical issues like equity, transparency, and sustainability without losing momentum on their core goals. By framing public good as a core part of project success, the framework helps founders ensure their ventures are not just another tech trend but a lasting contribution to a better digital future.

One of the framework’s greatest strengths is its adaptability. We need to be realistic. Many start-ups operate on tight budgets and limited resources, and the Proof of Good Framework was built with these constraints in mind. Founders can choose to use it as a complete blueprint for embedding societal values into every layer of their project or adopt it gradually, using specific pillars as conversation starters that evolve over time.

At its core, the framework revolves around 11 pillars, each a key consideration that can make or break the societal value of a Web3 project. These pillars include Equity and Inclusivity, Privacy and Data Security, Environmental Sustainability, Transparent Governance, and Community Engagement. Each one addresses an area where Web3 projects have the potential to fall short or to make a real impact.

Not every project will tackle all 11 pillars from day one. Some may focus on transparency in governance or privacy first, while others might prioritize environmental impact or equity. The beauty of the Proof of Good Framework is that it provides a roadmap without being rigid. Founders can address the pillars that resonate most with their mission and gradually integrate additional areas. This flexibility allows even resource-strapped start-ups to implement positive change without feeling overwhelmed.

Moreover, for those seeking to make a strong impression on investors, partners, and community members, the framework provides an attractive proof point. By openly sharing how they’re aligning with these principles, start-ups can build branding, credibility and trust. In a space where reputations are built (and lost) quickly, that trust can be invaluable. Furthermore, it’s not just a tool for developers or executives; it’s accessible for every team member who wants to understand how their work contributes to a larger societal mission.

All in all, with the Proof of Good Framework, founders can ensure that as they innovate, they’re also contributing to the broader good. It’s more than a set of principles, it’s a call to action for all of Web3 to step up and prove that technology can, and should, be a force for positive societal transformation. Let’s get it right.

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: 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.

Categories
Business & Society

What Kind of Digital World Are We Building?

For years, I’ve watched technology reshape our lives, but there’s something different about Web3. I’m sure you’ve heard its promises to revolutionize the internet as we know it. Yes, it could fundamentally change how power, control, and trust are distributed online. But as I dug deeper into this world, I couldn’t shake off a critical question: Is Web3 really going to empower us, or are we just swapping one set of gatekeepers for another?

This question drove me to write What World Are We Creating? The Impact of Web3 on Society and Well-Being. I’ve spent the past two years researching, interviewing, and writing—trying to understand the true implications of Web3 on our society. My journey began with the Cryptobeyer Newsletter, where I share my insights week after week, and I found myself both fascinated and concerned by what I uncovered.

Web3, in essence, is about decentralization, breaking down the power structures that have allowed a few tech giants to dominate the internet. Imagine a digital world where users control their own data, where transactions happen directly between people, and where organizations are run by communities instead of Zuckerberg... It’s an appealing vision of a fairer, more democratic digital space.

But here’s where my skepticism kicks in: Who’s really in control in this brave new world? As I explored the complexities of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and blockchain networks, I realized that the same issues of power and inequality can creep back in. Those who control the “code”—the developers and early adopters—can become the new digital gatekeepers. If we’re not careful, Web3 might replicate the very power structures it’s supposed to dismantle, just dressed in a different set of algorithms.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s immense potential in Web3. In the book, I dive into real-world examples where blockchain is already being used to address big challenges, from improving financial inclusion to creating transparent supply chains in healthcare. These innovations can make a substantial difference, but they also need to be accessible to everyone, not just the tech-savvy few.

What concerns me most is that we might get so caught up in the hype of decentralization that we forget to ask the tough questions: Who’s benefiting? Who’s being left behind? And are we building technology that genuinely serves society, or are we letting technology drive society in a direction we didn’t intend?

I believe in Web3’s potential, but I’m not blind to its pitfalls. That’s why I wrote What World Are We Creating?, to look beyond the hype and grapple with the real issues at stake. I want readers—whether they’re tech enthusiasts, policymakers, or just curious about where the internet is headed—to understand that the future of Web3 isn’t set in stone. The choices we make today will shape the digital society we leave for future generations.

So, will Web3 bring about a more equitable internet? Or will it just give rise to new digital elites? A technocracy. I’m not here to give definitive answers. But I hope this book will prompt us all to think critically, to question, and to demand more from the technologies that are shaping our world.

Check out the book at Amazon.