Web 3.0 is a concept that has existed for several years and has become more popular with the promotion of blockchain technology. When people were still unsure what the 3.0 version of the Web would look like, blockchain emerged. Especially with Ethereum’s dApp providing great possibilities, Web 3.0 became associated with blockchain, decentralization, and self-sovereignty.
A few days ago, I mentioned that “Web 3.0 Development” could be described as a career position, encompassing blockchain development and having a broader scope than just “blockchain development.”
In the Web 2.0 era, Web development referred to traditional front-end and back-end development. The front-end used frameworks like React.js, Vue.js, and Angular.js along with component libraries. The back-end used the Spring ecosystem, along with middleware like Zookeeper, Kafka, and Elasticsearch, and databases such as MySQL and Oracle, forming the common tech stack for Web development.
The tech stack for Web 3.0 development might evolve to include smart contract development tools and frameworks like Remix, Hardhat, and Ruffle. People will focus on Solidity’s language features, the setup and operation of blockchain nodes, secondary development, and even the development of blockchain nodes themselves. It’s hard to draw direct parallels between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 tech stacks. For instance, in blockchain development, it’s challenging to describe your job as front-end or back-end development; it’s more accurately described as blockchain development or smart contract development.
Some positions are now using the term “web3 development,” but it’s important to distinguish between Web 3.0 and web3. Many current positions refer to Ethereum’s web3 framework. We need a new description and a better, more promising career positioning: Web 3.0 development.
What I want to convey here is to believe that we are on the right path.
The primary market for blockchain refers to native chains like Bitcoin and Ethereum. The secondary market includes various projects derived from these chains, especially those based on Ethereum, such as Layer 2 solutions, oracles, NFTs, and ENS.
Some teams work on primary market projects like Solana, Filecoin, and Neo, which emerged after Ethereum. Dfinity’s IC is an example of an active primary market, and Bitcoin SV is working on “smart contract-enabled Bitcoin.”
Many startups are focusing on the secondary market. For example, some teams from 360 are working on smart contract security, scanning contracts for vulnerabilities. Others are developing NFT trading protocols, creating APIs similar to NFT exchanges, or designing different outfits for virtual characters in the metaverse. Decentralized email services based on IC also fall into this category. Various Ethereum scaling solutions are also part of the secondary market, with OP recently issuing tokens.
From a business perspective, there is no higher or lower value between these markets. Technically, it’s hard to say which is simpler or more complex. However, I believe the primary market is more foundational, albeit with slower technological development and fewer variations. The preference depends on personal inclination. Here, I want to emphasize that Web 3.0 development is a broad term, and understanding the differences between these market levels is crucial.
Although Web 3.0 is seen as a promising direction, it also has its limitations.
This topic came to mind when considering wallet security. One problem is that once a private key is leaked, you lose control over your assets permanently, or someone else permanently gains control.
We know that an account address can be decoded from a private key. The private key is your asset. When backing up a wallet, you’re backing up the private key. If your private key is leaked, it’s like handing over your money to someone else. Whether they take it immediately or you can reclaim it before they act is another issue.
This differs from traditional account models. Your user password isn’t your property. Centralized accounts are based on KYC; you can retrieve your assets by proving your identity through ID, fingerprint, or facial recognition. Your account password can be changed, and even if leaked, others can only control your account temporarily.
Private keys cannot be changed. The only option is to transfer assets to another private key quickly. Decentralization intentionally differentiates between identity and digital identity, increasing digital identity sovereignty but weakening control over it.
The question arises: Is decentralized asset security? Is holding your money better than storing it in a bank? Considering Bitcoin’s origin, rooted in distrust of centralized institutions, decentralization was born.
Think about it! Initially, there were no centralized institutions. People bartered, living in a decentralized world. To reduce personal asset protection costs and enhance punitive mechanisms against wrongdoers, centralized institutions were formed to protect the majority’s interests.
Promoting decentralization now seems like a historical regression. Decentralization isn’t a new concept; it existed and was selectively abandoned by people.
However, the difference now is that advanced technology might achieve what was previously impossible, pushing the world toward a new vision. But current technology isn’t that advanced yet, with many blockchain technical bottlenecks.
Therefore, my view is that today’s decentralization concept isn’t an evolution of the centralized world but a supplement to it. Centralized and decentralized systems will coexist in the future.
It’s important to note that decentralization isn’t synonymous with Web 3.0. Web 3.0 is an evolution of Web 2.0, indicating a new version. Web 3.0 will be an era where centralized and decentralized systems coexist.
Recently, something amusing happened. One day, LUNA’s price was $80 in the morning and dropped to $1 by the evening. In the next three to four days, LUNA’s price plummeted from $1 to $0.00001, a nearly ten-thousand-fold drop within days. A once top-ten cryptocurrency suddenly became worthless.
My basic understanding is that UST had a trading pool that tilted slightly when there was a large sell-off. Initially, there was a slight fluctuation, but as social media spread the news, retail investors lost confidence in UST and started selling off massively, driving the price lower. The Terra team had 50,000 Bitcoins as reserves and attempted to stabilize the balance, but Bitcoin’s value was also dropping. The Bitcoins pledged were worth less than expected, failing to stabilize the price. Eventually, the Terra team gave up, allowing the price to fall.
Shortly after the LUNA incident, some people discussed whether LUNA still had a chance. One possibility was that the Terra team, with $2 billion in reserves, could buy all UST when its market cap dropped below $2 billion, destroy the excess UST, and leave only $2 billion worth of UST, restoring its price to $1. However, the Terra team didn’t plan to do so and later issued a new LUNA.
LUNA’s failure doesn’t imply the failure of algorithmic stablecoins. Some teams are developing new algorithmic stablecoins, reportedly aiming to simulate the Federal Reserve’s operation model through algorithms, working on whitepapers.
In the grand era of Web 3.0, LUNA’s incident is just an early joke.
Recently, a new concept, Web5, emerged, implying Web 5.0. The person who proposed it said they skipped Web4 because Web2 + Web3 = Web5. Well, it’s impressive. Who else could propose Web5? Would anyone with some software engineering knowledge dare to say this?
In short, my conclusion is that Web5 will definitely not succeed. Whether it’s called Web5, Web6, or Web7, its concept still revolves around decentralization and SSI, falling within my understanding of Web 3.0. If you understand the principles of DIDs, you’ll know that the so-called Web5 is purely a gimmick at this stage.