New Criteria for Judging the Advantages and Disadvantages of Web 3.0 Projects 2: Trust in Community Governance
Author: Zhu Weishahttps://chainless.hk
Word count: 2295
introduction
Web3.0 is also called Web3. In the eyes of professionals, the two concepts are different, and this article makes no distinction. The difference between Web3 and Web2 projects is simply that Web3 owns more data than Web2. Most Web3 projects are open source programs and lack patent protection, so it's very easy to copy, and dozens of impersonations are very common. For example, after the Bitcoin BRC20 protocol came out, thousands of coin issuing projects suddenly sprung up using this open source agreement. These projects are mixed and dazzling.
Web3 coin issuance projects generally issued and distributed coins in the early stages. The circulation of coins was equivalent to listing, and it was difficult for professional investors to determine the value of early projects, so how should ordinary retail investors judge this? Is there a relatively simple method?
The competitive environment for Web3 and Web2 is similar, but there are also differences. In this competitive environment, in addition to the project judgment standards commonly used in Web2, new criteria are needed.
Web3 emphasizes trustlessness. Instead of not requiring trust, it places higher demands on trust, such as machine-level trust. In a world where devil and hope coexist, how to gain trust is obviously a key issue, which raises the question of a new trust judgment mechanism that Web2 does not have. This article describes the unique trust mechanism of Web3 from four perspectives: pioneering trust, community trust, influence trust, and white paper trust.
II. Trust in community governance
The development context of the cryptocurrency community
The use of the community began with the Bitcoin system. Satoshi Nakamoto has been involved in crypto punk mailing list groups since he was young, and he has a sense of community. After Bitcoin was released, the Bitcoin Forum was launched in November 2009. Since then, the Bitcoin technical community has also been established on the open source project hosting platform GitHub. This has always been a place for Bitcoin technical exchanges. Among them, the most valuable advance was the launch of the Bitcoin Improvement Protocol (BIP), which standardized technical exchanges. After Satoshi went incognito, the Bitcoin Forum gradually declined because it had no profit model, relied entirely on volunteer support, and was difficult to maintain as an interested community.
The Bitcoin technical community is an exchange between the computing power side and the programmer. Essentially, the computing power side is a direct user of the Bitcoin system. They have the same meaning as users who focus on transactions. Users who focus on transactions are the same as customers engaged in market transactions on the stock market. However, in reality, users who hold bitcoins have no say in the development of bitcoins, and the power of coin holders is not as powerful as that of retail stock market investors. The Bitcoin Forum does not represent user power; it is only natural for it to decline. Unlike Ethereum, it is a platform with three parties: the programmer, the bookkeeper, and the user. The users holding coins here are not optional, because the Ethereum platform has a large number of projects that compete against users. Users have become bastards, and users participate in the governance. It's a huge step forward for the community. This kind of community is more like a map of the structure of our society today.
Does Ethereum have an actual controller?
The idea of Bitcoin's improvement proposal was preserved by Ethereum, called the Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP). Proposal processing is called governance, and it is divided into off-chain governance and on-chain governance. On-chain governance embeds governance content directly into the blockchain, allowing automated token-based voting. Ethereum is more about off-chain governance, and issues that cannot be handled on-chain are coordinated through the Ethereum Foundation. Off-chain governance is unequal treatment, and the outcome does not depend on how many coins are held. Despite the consultation mechanism, it is to some extent the “dictatorship” of the Ethereum Foundation. Is this the right thing to do? When it comes to deciding technical issues, user voting is inappropriate; when it comes to issues of interest, anyone can try to understand it, so it is possible to implement on-chain voting when matters of interest are concerned. Unlike Ethereum and Bitcoin, Bitcoin is a mature project, so no major changes are needed; and if Ethereum 2.0 is launched a year later, the Ethereum platform will probably lose momentum. The Bitcoin community doesn't have Satoshi Nakamoto, right? That's not right. Because the Bitcoin user community is a complete waste. This is part of Bitcoin's unfinished work. It doesn't have a community of Bitcoin users, so Bitcoin won't necessarily beat fiat. Bitcoin is an unowned system. It is very difficult for an unowned system to defeat the dollar, which is armed to the teeth. If Bitcoin still has a chance under the same evolutionary conditions, but the competition conditions are unequal, the dispute between Bitcoin and the US dollar becomes an uncertain issue. For this, see Chainless.hk”Bitcoin's dollar standard” Topic. Ethereum has an actual controller, its influence is limited by the technical community, and Ethereum also has the Foundation's annual report. Their community governance and “dictatorship” are well combined. I don't know how it will go in the future, but it can currently gain the trust of community governance. Community governance does not have just one unified model. It applies to Bitcoin, not necessarily to Ethereum, and it is difficult to evaluate who is right and who is wrong. At this stage, the benefits of the existence of Ethereum Vitalik (Vitalik) outweigh the disadvantages.
The cryptocurrency community has huge room for innovation
Since Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't have a good idea for the community, there is a lot of room for future cryptocurrency innovation in the community. Currently, cryptocurrency community distributed autonomous organizations (DAOs) are unlearned things. I'm in “What Satoshi Nakamoto Didn't Expect, Nothing Said... “Series 4: The Cryptocurrency Community Has a Long Way to Go” (chainless.hk) explains why in detail. “Dao doesn't have an actual controller that can be seen 'on the surface'. Ethereum's Vitalik (Vitalik) also joined the chorus about this kind of DAO. There is no way to know for what purpose, but it must be true that his Ethereum project doesn't use DAO. DAO may be used for small things and specific things, but some of the little things sound beautiful and have little chance of success. In fact, the level gap between the cryptocurrency community and the Web2 community is getting bigger and bigger. Cryptocurrency users all go to Twitter, Telegram, Reddit (Reddit) and Discord (Discord) platforms to communicate.” This article explains the community's issues in detail, and readers can refer to it.
The level of community usage is a measure of Web3 projects
Cryptocurrency has not only changed productivity, but also improved production relationships. This is the slogan that attracted the author to enter the cryptocurrency field. How exactly can production relationships be improved? Why do traditional companies lose? These are all inseparable from community factors. Regarding how the community can drive a revolution in production relationships, we will introduce the distributed basic currency DW20 and the business model of the unchained system. It should be said that there is a simple standard for evaluating whether the cryptocurrency community is effective and whether the project is a Web3 project.
The use of communities is an advantage of Web3. By the size of the core team, it's easy to differentiate between company projects and community projects. Among companies with the same market value, Netflix (Netflix) core team (company) has 10,000 people, Zhao Changpeng's Binance has 6,000 people, YouTube (YouTube) has 1,000 people, and Ethereum has less than 50 people. However, it is said that there are more than 10,000 technicians working on the Ethereum platform. They are linked through community governance. Having good community governance is a good Web3 project. More than 80% of blockchain projects don't have good communities; they just use blockchain ledger technology. We need to observe the level of understanding and application of the project to the community. If the white paper does not clearly describe the aspect of the community where it is easiest to innovate, it means that this team is just a technical team, and the probability of failure is very high. Because there are no communities, there are no Web3 projects.
