This paper reflects on the fervor for web3. By envisioning an extremely decentralized society, the author points out that absolute decentralization in media and communication, government and social order will cause more serious community fragmentation, government dysfunction and economic collapse, and even bring about social unrest and the threat of war. The authors predict that future society will eventually be only slightly more decentralized than it is today.

As a deep web3 investor, I am of course both very bullish and excited about its enormous potential. But to some extent, it seems that we early practitioners are just blindly diving in, selectively looking at the positive aspects of web3 and decentralization without critically analyzing the negative aspects. This is scary and dangerous.

What I mean is: I understand that we are at a social, cultural and technological turning point. Countless things are tossing us all off: political polarization, neocon pneumonia, global warming, burnout, inflation, and a looming World War III, to name a few. Fed up with the status quo and eager to embrace something new, we went all in on web3 and the autonomous, anti-establishment movement it represents.

However, we did so in large part because we were seduced by the false pretense that "web3 can fix web2 and all the world's problems. It is overly optimistic and wrong. Because some of the most criticized things in web2 will probably be better than ever in web3 ...... However, no one is really talking about that.

As web3 entrepreneurs and investors, we have a moral responsibility to be critical of the future we are building and funding. So I have some initial Black Mirror-style ideas around this topic that I hope will spark more conversation about how we should respond to the challenges that will inevitably come our way.

Let's chart a spectrum of centrality at the social, political, economic and technological levels.

At one end of the spectrum is the purest form of centralization: a society ruled by a dictatorship, and a private marketplace built with web2 technology, which has allowed three or two large technology companies to dominate because the data-driven engine has built a huge moat for them, eliminating almost all competition. Power is concentrated in the hands of just a few players.

At the other end of the spectrum is the most extreme form of decentralization: a society that operates on libertarian principles, a private marketplace built by web3 technology. web3 allows many companies (in a DAO architecture) to coexist, but the crowded environment makes it difficult for them to scale. Power was distributed among many players.

Today, society as a whole is more centralized. We have central governments and central banks, and most people live in democracies (as opposed to autocracies or liberalism); web2 technology has given some large tech companies enormous power and ownership, able to shape private markets and our increasingly digital lives. In the future, society as a whole may become more decentralized as web3 technologies allow new decentralized organizations to form and operate effectively. By limiting the influence of tech giants and creating market opportunities for new entrants, this shift will go some way to improving the playing field.

Now, to illustrate the potential anti-utopian side effects of this decentralized shift, let's imagine an extreme scenario in which our world becomes completely decentralized and operates entirely in web3: the

Media and Communication

Over the past few years, we have witnessed a data-driven economy that has made tech giants rich in the web2 and has also polarized society, causing significant harm. According to researchers at Princeton University, "social networks don't just reflect polarization -- they have an impact on it." Over time, personalized, targeted content causes people to self-reinforce their beliefs and, in turn, become isolated. This creates the echo chamber effect and extremist groups that deeply divide our society.

In the extreme web3 world we imagine, decentralization would lead to even greater polarization. People would fragment into many different decentralized communities, resulting in more divisive and extremist groups. The echo chamber effect will be further exacerbated in these communities as each speaks for itself and relies only on its own niche news sources. We may come to a situation where the central media that delivers information to the public no longer exists, leaving only niche news media to reinforce the beliefs of niche decentralized communities. This could lead to a war between numerous ideological groups, rather than a potential civil war between the left and the right.

On a global scale, we would become more closed-minded, less receptive to new ideas, and less willing to work together. We would become ignorant and foolish, lacking empathy for those outside our own small circle and cutting ourselves off from opportunities to benefit society as a whole. We will no longer have the ability to educate and mobilize the masses to take action on critical efforts such as saving the planet. We will experience a reversal in the sharing of ideas, innovation and globalization. The end result will be worse for everyone.

Government and the Social Order

Considering the damage caused by decentralized media and communications, society could descend into anarchy. Governments may lose the ability to effectively communicate policies, goals, and influences to their constituents. Popular ignorance, discontent, and the combined sense of helplessness that comes from the perception that one cannot control or improve one's life may drive people to rise up - as seen in the riots of January 6.

Some of Princeton University's research on political polarization concludes.

"A complex systems perspective suggests that the loss of diversity associated with polarization gradually erodes cooperation, and society's ability to provide the public goods that help build a healthy society [...]. ."

"As social interaction and individual will isolate people into entrenched camps, the political system becomes incapable of either solving a range of problems or devising solutions - all of which are necessary for government to function and provide critical services to society"

The results of national discontent, combined with potentially weak or volatile financial markets, can be catastrophic. For the past 100 years, the economy has been a top concern for voters in U.S. presidential elections. While the U.S. government may continue to run its central bank, if people choose to hold most of their wealth in cryptocurrencies, our government and its voters could lose not only economic control, but political control and social order as well. A real slippery slope effect.

Conclusion

Okay, I know I'm being dark! To clarify, I don't think the world will become completely decentralized. This is an extreme example to illustrate my point. Realistically, we will probably be somewhere on the centralization spectrum that is slightly more decentralized than we are today. However, I hope this example will inspire new ideas and actions that will allow us to shape the future to be an improvement over the status quo we are trying to disrupt.

One final thought -- centralization isn't all bad. Web2 and web3 should not contradict each other; they need to coexist and complement each other.

All in all I think we would all be great in a slightly more decentralized society. I will continue to invest in web3, but with a socially conscious mindset that looks at its opportunities and threats.

This paper reflects on the fervor for web3. By envisioning an extremely decentralized society, the author points out that absolute decentralization in media and communication, government and social order will cause more serious community fragmentation, government dysfunction and economic collapse, and even bring about social unrest and the threat of war. The authors predict that future society will eventually be only slightly more decentralized than it is today.

As a deep web3 investor, I am of course both very bullish and excited about its enormous potential. But to some extent, it seems that we early practitioners are just blindly diving in, selectively looking at the positive aspects of web3 and decentralization without critically analyzing the negative aspects. This is scary and dangerous.

What I mean is: I understand that we are at a social, cultural and technological turning point. Countless things are tossing us all off: political polarization, neocon pneumonia, global warming, burnout, inflation, and a looming World War III, to name a few. Fed up with the status quo and eager to embrace something new, we went all in on web3 and the autonomous, anti-establishment movement it represents.

However, we did so in large part because we were seduced by the false pretense that "web3 can fix web2 and all the world's problems. It is overly optimistic and wrong. Because some of the most criticized things in web2 will probably be better than ever in web3 ...... However, no one is really talking about that.

As web3 entrepreneurs and investors, we have a moral responsibility to be critical of the future we are building and funding. So I have some initial Black Mirror-style ideas around this topic that I hope will spark more conversation about how we should respond to the challenges that will inevitably come our way.

Let's chart a spectrum of centrality at the social, political, economic and technological levels.

At one end of the spectrum is the purest form of centralization: a society ruled by a dictatorship, and a private marketplace built with web2 technology, which has allowed three or two large technology companies to dominate because the data-driven engine has built a huge moat for them, eliminating almost all competition. Power is concentrated in the hands of just a few players.

At the other end of the spectrum is the most extreme form of decentralization: a society that operates on libertarian principles, a private marketplace built by web3 technology. web3 allows many companies (in a DAO architecture) to coexist, but the crowded environment makes it difficult for them to scale. Power was distributed among many players.

Today, society as a whole is more centralized. We have central governments and central banks, and most people live in democracies (as opposed to autocracies or liberalism); web2 technology has given some large tech companies enormous power and ownership, able to shape private markets and our increasingly digital lives. In the future, society as a whole may become more decentralized as web3 technologies allow new decentralized organizations to form and operate effectively. By limiting the influence of tech giants and creating market opportunities for new entrants, this shift will go some way to improving the playing field.

Now, to illustrate the potential anti-utopian side effects of this decentralized shift, let's imagine an extreme scenario in which our world becomes completely decentralized and operates entirely in web3: the

Media and Communication

Over the past few years, we have witnessed a data-driven economy that has made tech giants rich in the web2 and has also polarized society, causing significant harm. According to researchers at Princeton University, "social networks don't just reflect polarization -- they have an impact on it." Over time, personalized, targeted content causes people to self-reinforce their beliefs and, in turn, become isolated. This creates the echo chamber effect and extremist groups that deeply divide our society.

In the extreme web3 world we imagine, decentralization would lead to even greater polarization. People would fragment into many different decentralized communities, resulting in more divisive and extremist groups. The echo chamber effect will be further exacerbated in these communities as each speaks for itself and relies only on its own niche news sources. We may come to a situation where the central media that delivers information to the public no longer exists, leaving only niche news media to reinforce the beliefs of niche decentralized communities. This could lead to a war between numerous ideological groups, rather than a potential civil war between the left and the right.

On a global scale, we would become more closed-minded, less receptive to new ideas, and less willing to work together. We would become ignorant and foolish, lacking empathy for those outside our own small circle and cutting ourselves off from opportunities to benefit society as a whole. We will no longer have the ability to educate and mobilize the masses to take action on critical efforts such as saving the planet. We will experience a reversal in the sharing of ideas, innovation and globalization. The end result will be worse for everyone.

Government and the Social Order

Considering the damage caused by decentralized media and communications, society could descend into anarchy. Governments may lose the ability to effectively communicate policies, goals, and influences to their constituents. Popular ignorance, discontent, and the combined sense of helplessness that comes from the perception that one cannot control or improve one's life may drive people to rise up - as seen in the riots of January 6.

Some of Princeton University's research on political polarization concludes.

"A complex systems perspective suggests that the loss of diversity associated with polarization gradually erodes cooperation, and society's ability to provide the public goods that help build a healthy society [...]. ."

"As social interaction and individual will isolate people into entrenched camps, the political system becomes incapable of either solving a range of problems or devising solutions - all of which are necessary for government to function and provide critical services to society"

The results of national discontent, combined with potentially weak or volatile financial markets, can be catastrophic. For the past 100 years, the economy has been a top concern for voters in U.S. presidential elections. While the U.S. government may continue to run its central bank, if people choose to hold most of their wealth in cryptocurrencies, our government and its voters could lose not only economic control, but political control and social order as well. A real slippery slope effect.

Conclusion

Okay, I know I'm being dark! To clarify, I don't think the world will become completely decentralized. This is an extreme example to illustrate my point. Realistically, we will probably be somewhere on the centralization spectrum that is slightly more decentralized than we are today. However, I hope this example will inspire new ideas and actions that will allow us to shape the future to be an improvement over the status quo we are trying to disrupt.

One final thought -- centralization isn't all bad. Web2 and web3 should not contradict each other; they need to coexist and complement each other.

All in all I think we would all be great in a slightly more decentralized society. I will continue to invest in web3, but with a socially conscious mindset that looks at its opportunities and threats.