DAOrayaki｜Reputation in Web3: Riding the Waves
DAOrayaki DAO Research Bonus Pool:
Funding address: 0xCd7da526f5C943126fa9E6f63b7774fA89E88d71
Voting Progress: DAO Committee 4/7 passed
Total bounty: 100 USDC
DAOrayaki DAO Research Bonus Pool:
Voting Progress: DAO Committee 4/7 passed
Contributors: Yofu, DAOctor @DAOrayaki
Total bounty: 100 USDC
Types of research: DAO, Web3, Reputation
Original author: Jarrod Dicker etl.
Contributors: Yofu, DAOctor @DAOrayaki
Original: Reputation in Web3: Ships Built on the Great Flood
Is this what we call Web3? Will it replace the principles, technologies, and behaviors of Web2 as we know it? (Is this how the stages of the Internet work?)
Many blockchain enthusiasts seem to think so too. As the term Web2 becomes closely associated with centralized social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, and as these networks become increasingly powerful politically - with policies of moderation that are arbitrary, capricious, or incompetent, not to mention potentially harmful to society Harmful Business Practices - It is very common to hear crypto people implying that decentralized applications will do better. A community-owned network will be fairer because users who create content and attract new members will fully participate in the value they create as token holders. The dissemination of content can be based on meaningful values such as reputation and expertise, rather than gamified outrage and algorithmically rewarded hype. Governance, like moderation policy, will be driven by the community as a whole, not by a small group of executives and their handpicked oversight boards of insiders looking to maximize their wealth or security. It has been suggested that the appeal of this advanced model will attract key influencers, provide a better user experience, and drive a shift from old social platforms to new ones.
However, it's hard to see how this happens. If anything, encryption has made "old" centralized social networks, and Twitter in particular, more centralized than ever. How many influencers use their followers to easily get into cryptocurrency sales? How many significant projects use social media to find and recruit contributors? Where else will new currencies and tokens be supported to state their case and How about sharing their memes? Where else can we showcase our CryptoPunks, Hashmasks, and Bored Apes? How is it possible that a Bitcoin trader hasn’t paid attention to Elon’s Twitter feeds over the past few months? For the everyday reality of DeFi That being said, social media is so important that it can be difficult to tell where the two end and begin. Arguably, it’s the gamified virality of centralized platforms that makes them so valuable to crypto marketing and communities.
Given this dynamic, how realistic are some shifts? Or are we effectively trapping ourselves in a centralized system? What is wrong with Web2?
secondary title
What's wrong with Web2?
In 2004, "Web2" caught on at a conference that tried to ask the same question: "What went wrong?" The organizers of the first Web2 conference argued that after the dot-com bust, the industry "lost direction” requires an infusion of confidence. In particular, there is a sense that vertically integrated portals like America Online and Yahoo have created unsustainable behemoths that "wickedly" trap users and their data, preventing small The creative innovations of start-ups lead to bubbles and bursts. Web2 started out as being about understanding and emulating the ideas and design concepts of the open source movement, but also the success of companies that have expanded despite the drought, such as Google and Amazon.
In those days, Google in particular was seen as a role model for putting the best resources in front of users who were using search. What is best for the ecosystem is some virtuous approach rather than trying to capture 100% of the value. The symbolic core concept is "Open API". Each should and will build on the others. In fact, one of the most important lessons to be learned from these surviving companies is that user-generated content and data can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage while improving the user experience and the web for all. From here on, users will become first-rate contributors, no longer relegated to the comments section at the bottom of the page, but the stars of these new open systems. Developers will compete to attract their use and contributions by offering greater freedom and flexibility. The best company will be the best platform, creating more value for the entire ecosystem.
But the problem is, this has never been a sustainable long-term strategy, at least not for promoting an open ecosystem. User-generated data is susceptible to a range of sub-optimizations, such as Goodhart's Law, where using a "measure" as a "measure" reduces the value of the metric itself. If you Google to build PageRank on your organic pages, you'll quickly generate SEO proposals looking to match your metrics. If you're Amazon that relies on user reviews, you can quickly be inundated with fake reviews. If your Facebook is building a user recommendation algorithm, you will soon be recommended content within your existing ideology and filter bubbles.
These metric-based competitive advantages erode as companies increasingly use them as metrics for acquisition and optimization. The result is that these companies, naturally seeking to maintain an advantage, are forced to develop powerful user management and the ability to manipulate themselves. On a more benevolent note, these data are more of a way to reduce friction, improve experience and focus demand, recreating most of the negatives of the old portal system, just with a friendly name that everything is just one click away Can. For the most part, these successful companies are not true platforms but aggregators, locking in demand and enforcing central control, though admittedly, at least initially, with a velvet fist, partly due to superior user experience.
This necessary lockdown is arguably at the root of today's outrage. Web2 in 2004 suffered a market failure, and Web3 in 2021 suffered a user failure. We're a bunch of people who didn't pass the marshmallow test, always optimizing for less friction, more dopamine, and shorter feedback cycles. We claim to want richer experiences, support independent participants, despise centralization and demand more meaningful connections and higher quality content. But then we unlocked our phones. So the successes Google, Facebook, and Twitter have had in data-based ad monetization and engagement-optimized user experience are now the problem, not the solution.
As Web2 companies began to tap into the powerful potential of their innovations—gamelike reaction buttons, follower graphs, algorithmic “newsfeeds”—they began to master a clever strategy. They can provide new user tools or developer APIs and encourage the community to use them to create, rather than committing to a perpetual openness. If it turns out to be good for the company, they might allow this idea to flourish for a while, but pretty soon, they'll either be charging for the most successful creations, or buying or creating their own.
It is difficult to attribute this practice to them. Works! Twitter, Facebook, and Google are all for-profit companies, and this dynamic is nothing new for "platforms." Microsoft, the demon of the open source community, used a similar strategy in its heyday. But the development and explosion of smartphones is what makes it so ferocious.
Mobile devices have app stores, emoji, cameras, notifications, and most importantly, they are always touchable, making them a perfect match for "Web2" social networking. Every new phone buyer is a potential social user, and this tight web of relationships quickly forms, making it nearly impossible to say no to buying a phone to access them.
This cycle sparked an influx of new users unprecedented in the history of technology adoption. All over the world, people who recently had limited access to computers are now checking their newsfeeds throughout the day. Every new family or friend they follow adds to the value of the experience, the depth of their connection and the virality of the network. Mobile and social become a second brain, and "notifications" a sixth sense. So, even if content creators and app developers knew that the "game" was being "rigged", how could they not take advantage of this huge opportunity? Perhaps, they thought, if their brand or invention was the first, if it was Best of all, it's probably one of the few companies that has grown so fast that they can gain some sort of escape velocity from the social network's gravity well. After all, it has happened. A social app or content that combines uniqueness, design genius, and luck gains millions of users within hours. So they pour their ideas, talent, and money into these platforms, adding more engaging media and interactions that drive deeper engagement without adding any extra cost to the network. For all the complaints about unfair practices or addictive behavior, it all just makes the web more important. A large number of users continue to pour in.
We now live in a flooded world. This is a world of social activity, a world where every institution is pulled by the tides of a new and wildly unpredictable environment. Our kids dream of growing up to be Instagram stars. Our top music charts are a direct output of the most popular soundtracks on Tiktok. A Facebook-inspired political cult has attacked the US Capitol. Even social platforms have been buffeted by the storm their technology has unleashed. Their efforts to assert control do little more than make their own positions more important and central. Hence the alluring appeal of the notion of Web3 as a successor paradigm in the context of this flooded world.
Platform Wealth and Economic Sharing: Today, creators and consumers contribute to platforms to gain social or economic status. But this state is leased (the state only on the platform, the revenue is directly shared with the platform). In Web3, this state is owned. Not only social reputation is portable, but also the IP relationships created on the platform.
Content ownership and rights: Web3 introduces ownership as a process. Since IP is released on the network, in order to show the provenance of IP and let the creator control the rights of its distribution and use, IP is manufactured on the chain. This is done on an individual level as well as a platform level.
The lucky accident of NFTs: It is increasingly apparent that on an open, interoperable world computer, certain objects will be treated and valued as if they were real. This is not fully understood, but for now, NFTs are unique to a blockchain-style architecture, which would represent a considerable advantage.
Governance, personal influence, and moderation: As we discussed in previous articles, ownership has less to do with financial interests and more to do with social influence. In Web3, an individual now has influence within the organization in which he or she holds tokens, enabling him/her to drive decision making that results in better health and efficiency for the community.
Permissionless development and composability: Today's platforms control what can and cannot be published on their network. It also lets every user start from the same starting line. In Web3, development is unrestricted because authority is directly tied to an individual's reputation. Every decision they make is tied to who they are, so you can choose whether you want to carry those decisions with you throughout your network. Everything built on top of that protocol is the foundation upon which others can build. So instead of everyone acting independently and starting from scratch, everyone works in collaboration and builds on the base LEGO of the other members before them.
New models of work and collaboration: Web3's business model encourages collaboration. In Web2, all revenue streams reward the act of output (advertising for published content, subscribing to completed work). In Web3, there is now a business model about input. Crowdfunding and social tokens are investments in ideas that encourage strong collaboration, rewarding all participants throughout the creative process, before any ideas come to fruition.
This is a rich set of imaginative capabilities that can directly answer the most pernicious questions that Web2 has formed nearly two decades after its birth: ownership, governance, openness, incentives, reputation. In many ways, the solution Web3 proposes is the exact opposite of what social networks offer, a "better deal" for users, creators and developers, an intentionally weighted approach to reward An individual or team, based on her, his, or their input, is not overwhelmed with ever-increasing control and rewards to the owners and operators of the network. This begs the question: Will Web3 replace Web2 if it's better for more people? why not?
secondary title
There are three possible answers:
1. No - Web3 is best understood as an "economic" extension of Web2, especially social media, which will evolve with Web2.
2. To some extent - key aspects of Web2 will be better executed by Web3 systems, and there will be a symbiotic relationship between the two parallel but equally powerful models.
3. Yes - Over time, all key aspects of Web2, including centralized social networks, will be replaced by web3-style user-owned and governed protocols.
