I recently read an article by Scott Galloway on web3. It's fairly long but very thoughtful. (I'm not going to address everything in the article, so if you read it, let me know what other points you'd like my take on)
Scott is critical of web3 for a lot of reasons, but I will only address 2 here:
- his definition of centralization
I've addressed inequality recently, but the punchline is: I think this isn't as big of an issue as Scott makes it out to be because wealth is not the same thing as power/control. Blockchain networks distribute rewards based on merit. Any system that operates as a meritocracy will naturally have inequality. I think of blockchains/crypto more like capitalism than socialism (and I'm not convinced socialism is possible on blockchain as long as anonymity is allowed).
On centralization, Scott says:
Many of our greatest achievements were born from “centralization.” This includes the U.S. itself. Pre-revolution, our nation was a scattered collection of mininations that had distinct currencies, foreign policies, and navies. Only after we centralized under the Constitution were we able to bind those nations into a cohesive and prosperous union: the United States of America. (Sounds better than the Centralized States of America.)
I agree with the point Scott is making, but he's not talking about centralization. The USA is united under a constitution in the same way participants in a blockchain network are united under the code/infrastructure running the blockchain. The USA is centralized under a government with the power to change many of the rules without taking into account the input of the average citizen. Blockchains (at least the good ones) aren't centralized in this way.
P.S. I'm sick at the moment, so let me know if any of this sounds like the ramblings of a crazy person and I'll clarify.