I came across a book called Web 3.0 Revolution at the library, and while reading it, I found some grateful passages and a few points I see a bit differently, so I am jotting them down.
Web 3.0 Revolution link
Passages that gave me insight
#01
Early in the book, the author neatly introduces the main cases that have taken root in actual markets or that are being continuously experimented with. They will be very helpful as main keywords for later research.
(p81) DAOs are being attempted in various forms according to the organization's purpose. First, DAOs related to "investment and collecting" — forming a DAO to jointly buy specific assets for investment (rare documents, collectibles). Similar to crowdfunding. Overseas, Constitution DAO was set up to bid on the US Constitution at auction and turn it into an NFT, distributing the proceeds. Second, "social" DAOs — organizations formed online by people sharing tastes or thoughts; joining lets you enjoy community content or exclusive events. Social DAOs have members buy a certain amount of tokens or NFTs as a membership fee. DAOs for "intermediary services" including hiring — e.g., when assembling developers or designers, pay them with DAO-issued tokens; incentives for those who refer good talent, or firms paying DAO tokens to commission hiring. Influencer-run DAOs built on community and fandom — members jointly decide on promoting the influencer's content or group donations.
#02
Past the midpoint, the book addresses something truly important: how to build a sustainable structure.
(134) To keep users long-term regardless of purpose (earning money, enjoying a game), continuous capital flow and various activities like NFT creation and sale must back it up. The X2E model requires thought about what actions get rewarded and how users stay in the service and keep acting. X2E's core is that everyone in the ecosystem — creators, consumers, platforms — is rewarded. But adopting X2E does not mean rewarding every action, nor is it applicable to every business. If X2E cannot be built sustainably, there is room for it to be used in negative directions. Some users will only chase rewards; users can leave quickly if the service has no value. So when adopting or building X2E, prepare carefully, considering existing business and users.
Where I see it somewhat differently
A few personal thoughts on sections whose wording felt neoliberal and uncomfortable to me.
#01
(278) What happens after new services and values emerge? Humans do not hand them over to others for free or cheap. They want to own the value they created. In Web 2.0, platforms took most of this "ownership." In Web 3.0, they do not intend to hand over ownership. People have begun to secure ownership of valuable data and assets. Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 are concepts and directions that appeared alongside advances in technology. But only one thing runs through both eras: money. The biggest driver of tech progress may be life's inconveniences or the desire for a better life, but ultimately money is what most strongly motivates. If DAOs were systems where people had to work or contribute without rewards, they would never be sustained. Participants expect rewards from the value the DAO creates. There must be rewards for motivation to arise and a reason to participate. Most people need money. Maybe not if you already have too much or pursue non-possession. But the biggest reason Web 3.0 was born is that it becomes a new revenue channel for companies, and for individuals, a chance to gain a bit more wealth.
Please.. this does not feel right. A DAO is not an opportunity for an individual to gain a bit more wealth, but a tool for creating smart contracts that fundamentally prevent outside interference, so that people can receive the value and rights they should naturally receive, if they belong to a country and market that is capitalist. A DAO is not a structure where you act within the frame (market) built by platforms and are rewarded proportionally. That would be no different from Web 2.0 platforms.
In socialist markets, the state limited individual economic freedom; in the Web 2.0 market (closer to neoliberalism than capitalism), the economic activity of individuals (consumers, workers) is being more elaborately and structurally restricted by so-called platforms or financial powers exposed as VCs. So I hope Web 3.0 and DAO market participants do not treat this as a simple wealth-creation tool. Those who do can keep doing what they did well in Web 2.0.
#02
It is not that the platform or business entity takes all the profits. X2E allows users to receive ownership and rewards for what they create and contribute, making it a new economic activity for the Web 3.0 era.
This is one of the more pitiable sections. "Not all profits are taken" is itself problematic. There is no business entity. It is not a matter of posturing as 9:1, 8:2, or even 6:4 as in Web 2.0 — the structure is 1:1:1:1. Whether private or public. That is why it either is not settling, or is debated when it does. It is not on the level of "I built a subway or tunnel as a private operator, so I made a platform, so I take a fee." More plainly: having come all the way to Web 3.0, please do not put up buildings and run rental businesses to create new wealth.
#03
(281) 1. As in the previous web transition, the shift from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 will bring many experiments and failures. Users' sustained interest and participation are key. 2. Centralized-service Web 2.0 firms and decentralized-service Web 3.0 firms will coexist. 3. In Web 3.0, more advanced division of labor will create new services and value, leading to a desire for ownership. Web 2.0 platforms took ownership; in Web 3.0, individuals can secure it. 4. The strongest driver of technological progress is money. Web 3.0 can be a new way to create unprecedented wealth. 5. Web 3.0 is an era where individual effort and contribution value is recognized more, and ownership can be secured.
Personally, putting #4 in the same basket is a bit careful. Recognition of individual contribution value and ownership does not seem to live on the same layer as monetary value or new wealth creation. #4 may motivate some, but as the author himself writes, it can grant a mistaken interpretation of Web 3.0. It also does not read smoothly against the backdrop from which Web 3.0 emerged. Web 2.0 is the neoliberal era. Some early-stage startups have become big brothers; VCs that grew riding on their backs are shaping markets with the force of capital. What justifies all their actions and decisions without shame is neoliberal thinking — platform-based wealth creation on capital by any means. The kind of competitive strategy that feels like "Bongi Kim Seondal" plus road-blocking thug: give things away until consumers are hooked and rivals wither, then block the road and charge tolls. A country that acted on this idea is Chile — where, thanks to that fresh idea, not only water but blood is drying up.
I hope participants smarter, more famous, and more experienced than I am do not overlook that "economic utility does not always correspond to rational utility." DAOs, I think, are the result of a conceptual pivot for structural change meant to correct unethical monopoly and privilege. Bongi Kim Seondal, Columbus's egg, the Gordian knot should be taken as wake-ups for "the power of a shift in thinking" when stuck in a suffocating situation — not a tool for self-intoxication or for rationalizing oneself (or one's organization) in reality. Chasing surface-level economic utility: Chile's rivers have dried up, the West kicked off brutal imperialism, the Macedonian empire was eventually dismantled.
The difference between socialism and capitalism, I think, is not whether individuals own capital itself, but how we handle the distribution and ownership of the products of individual productive activity. Neoliberalism became an issue because the distribution and ownership of total capital became more one-sided and unjust than under socialism. Today's neoliberalism is, in practice, closer to a feudal form. Power used to divide ideology; now capital does. So the social structure also needs to adjust. At this point, I hope no one thinks of words like redistribution, public good, or altruism. I am not criticizing earning, owning, or creating surplus — I am saying do not limit other people's economic activity in the process. More directly: do not block the road and charge tolls just because you have some money. Such Web 2.0 platform businesses are more common today than you would think. It is legal. Beyond legal/illegal, many try to create wealth this way, and government support programs open up for them. Restricting individual freedom should not be an exception for the power of capital any more than for the power of politics. Against this backdrop, the concept of DAOs is forming. Beyond the slogans of cooperatives that pledged beliefs, ideology, and at times morality, governance is now being built on various tech and on economic/financial incentives. Personally, I interpret this as a moment where a new challenge — an experiment toward post-capitalism — is underway to prevent capitalism's distortion caused by the advancement of neoliberalism.
