There is little doubt that the battle for freedom is on. We have a world where people are taking to the streets in an effort to push back on policies and actions that are taking away people's freedoms.
At the same time, we see a digital world that is, unfortunately, mirroring much of the "real" world. Actually, if we step back, we can see the digital world operated in a more tyrannical fashion than what took place outside. What was designed originally as an open forum of information was hijacked and siloed. Our entire online world is run by a handful of major companies.
The entities that are in control differ but the result is the same. Web 3.0 promises to be something completely different. The challenge here is this was what the Internet was suppose to offer. Yet, in spite of the values of the early developers, the exact opposite happened.
Thus, we are confronted with the question can Web 3.0 end up in tyranny also?
It is a topic worthy of discussion.
It is obvious that power comes from centralized states. When something is decentralized, tyranny has a much tougher time. For this reason, power is usually amassed in an hierarchical fashion, which each layer exerting control over the layer below. Whether it is a government or corporation, the result is the same. The largest layer, the bottom, has very little say in what takes place. It also tends to lack the ability to defend itself.
The same is not true in a decentralized state. Here we see the design horizontal in nature. This pushed the control in a sideways direction, making it hard to exert control over another. The examples of horizontal structures are not prevalent simply because it was not the preferred method.
We do see some benefits to centralized entities. One of the biggest is efficiency, especially when it comes to decision making. When a few are tasked with the responsibility for making the decisions, then the actions filter out from there, things can get done in a timely manner. Of course, this is ripe for abuse, which we often see occur.
Companies such as Google, Apple, and Facebook, some of the primary players of Web 2.0, are known to be tyrannical in nature. While it varies how they behave, each exerts full control over their ecosystem. With Facebook, we see censoring, account deletion, and algorithm changes that wipe out businesses. As for Apple, their control shows up mostly in their app store, where competitors are not allowed and huge fees are taken by the company.
Even when operating in a responsible manner, the structure guarantees there will be exploitation, a move that will ultimately end up in tyranny in some form.
With Web 3.0, we are guaranteed that the existing entities of tyranny are not present. However, could new ones form?
Unlike Apple, the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum are open source projects. The software can be forked, providing the users a degree of protection. At the same time, users control their wallets meaning account closure is not possible.
Does that ensure that tyranny cannot happen?
This is becoming a major question as we watch what is taking place with Bitcoin. We already saw China ban mining, which sent those entities scurrying to different parts of the world.
We are seeing this followed up by some individual countries following the same course of action. Then we get the latest, where an EU regulator called for a ban of cryptocurrency mining within the EU.
So, while Bitcoin is decentralized to the point it cannot be closed down, could see a shift where the mining ends up primarily in one geographic area? If that is the case, how does that impact the control that can be exerted over the network? Where do government entities step in via their ability to regulate those doing the mining? Could this be hijacked?
Of course, if that happens, a forking could take place. But would that offer the same capabilities? Could that be a step backwards?
We also have something similar with Ethereum. This is switching to a Proof-of-Stake model. Are there points of vulnerability there?
Unlike a government entity, the advantage to an Ethereum is that people are free to go anywhere on the network they want. There is no way to stop them other than the validators getting together and opting to do that. However, if that occurs, confidence in the system is instantly destroyed.
The pragmatic side of things prevents large validators from doing that. There is simply too much to lose.
Nevertheless, we need to be mindful of the potential that could take place.
Our final point might be in simply stepping back further. Perhaps there are vulnerabilities at the individual level. By this, separate networks, not matter what we do, can be attacked and, ultimately, taken over. For this reason, it is possible for tyranny to enter Web 3.0.
However, the defense against this is the collective. Whereas one system might be vulnerable, all are not. We are seeing development taking place on many different chains, most of which were forks of something else. Within each of those systems there is a degree of decentralizing taking place. This provides a bit more resiliency.
Also, values are growing, the recent collapse aside. Each day more of existing tokens are issued out. This is coupled with newer projects bringing out there own. When we combine this, we see wealth generate spreading to more people.
With wallet holders globally, each increase in stake is influence over some networks. The Proof of Work systems do not enjoy this yet anything with some form of coin governance does.
Is this really just a game of whack-a-mole? They might be able to get some of what is developed here but not all. With each passing day, more is being created. Ultimately, the growth rate of users is going to be such where massive shifts will occur, seemingly overnight.
Does that provide a defense? With even a few pieces of infrastructure that ensures open transaction ability, the system cannot be stopped. This helps to keep tyranny at bay.
Could we still see entities stepping up and taking over Web 3.0? It certainly is possible since none of us can see the future. We should keep in mind the original framers of the Internet probably did not see the likes of Apple, Google or PayPal. Nevertheless, they were able to jump in and operate in a way that is more benefitting to them over the user base.
It seems like the key is going to be continued focus upon this subject. The idea of continued distributing and decentralizing is vital. It is something we need to be consistent with. At not point can we allow the efforts to stop. If that happens, then forces can move in to take over.
This is the only way to prevent tyranny from taking over Web 3.0. We have the tools, we just need to exercise them.
What are your thoughts?
If you found this article informative, please give an upvote and rehive.
gif by 
logo by 
