The need for inconsistency or the inconsistency in the need for Web3

Foreword

The entire text below is an integral part of a more general theory presented in the theoretical and scientific article “The Theory of the Structure of Hidden Systems”.

Article located completely open source. With free time and new knowledge, the article improves, becoming more perfect in its manifestation. Therefore, any (adequate) criticism, additions, comments are welcome.

Introduction

All of the above research (“The Theory of the Structure of Hidden Systems”) is primarily an analysis of the development of secure and anonymous systems, the formation of which goes through internal stages of contradictions at the level of their technical description. Nevertheless, as it was said in the subsection “Centralization as a factor of prolonged stagnation” of the “Introduction” section, all systems are not so simple and their development, or rather their stagnation, cannot be described solely in technical language, because the factor of deterrence, retention of the system begins depend directly on economic and political reasons. If all systems were developed only and only by technical necessity, including focusing on the security and anonymity of ordinary users, then the Internet (or any other network like NETSUKUKU) would already today become an expression of real protection of confidential information without significant centralized mechanisms. But it is precisely economic factors that begin to dictate the inexpediency of measures, do not allow evolution on the basis of the vectors of hidden systems, because the development itself becomes an unprofitable excess of hierarchical structures. Centralization, as the dominant system, will literally suffer huge losses with a multiple deterioration in the quality of collecting information about ordinary users, which will also radically narrow the markets for the sale of confidential information on the part of advertisers, and will also greatly reduce control over such information by states. Therefore, cases are clearly and transparently observed when states try with all their might to prohibit decentralized systems, and monopolistic corporations, with their significant economic resources, do not seek to transfer their systems to open decentralized “floating”.

contradictions

It also follows from the above that a momentary technological revolution aimed at the security and anonymity of users, and at the same time based on the synthesis of political and economic interests, becomes only an idealistic representation of progress. The economic rationalization of centralized systems becomes the main and insurmountable obstacle to idealistic views on the development of hidden systems.

On the other hand, centralization itself, in the course of its immanent evolution, begins to absorb more and more peer-to-peer connections with each iteration of progress, gradually embedding, “implanting” them into the paradigm of hierarchical communications. The expediency becomes quite reasonable, because it is directed to a permanent increase in its fault tolerance and replaceability properties due to the separation and duplication of the functions of the system nodes. Nevertheless, such an outcome leads simultaneously to two contradictions:

1. Internal employees of corporations, representing the very scale of hierarchical monopolization, will increasingly and intensively take measures aimed at leaking information for their own benefit. This judgment is connected not only with the increasing interest of employees, but also with an increase in the number of such employees, because the size of the company begins to be directly determined by the number of its employees, just like the likelihood of associated risk. Hierarchical systems, with each new peer-to-peer mechanism implanted, become more and more difficult to manage, which gradually and systematically begins to lead to more frequent violations of security policies by its employees, and as a result, again to increase risks.

2. New market participants that do not represent a monopoly can “recoup” by creating peer-to-peer systems with economic mechanisms at once, thereby initializing competition in the market of heterogeneous systems, and ultimately reconstructing “monopoly in a decentralized representation”. Corporations are beginning to understand that if such new systems are not suppressed, either economically (leading, buying) or political (prohibitions), then such systems will sooner or later begin to form new economic markets in which such companies will no longer have power. Therefore, the monopolies themselves continue the general movement towards new markets of self-destruction, rhizomorphism, and disintegration of centralization. At the same time, it is worth noting that short-term interests are political suppressions, and long-term interests are economic, but in any case, no matter what outcome centralization chooses, it will personally come to its fatal split.

Based on these contradictions, sprouts begin to emerge, leading to the beginning of the development of hidden systems, when it becomes more profitable for companies and corporations to manage hybrid or decentralized systems than complex hierarchical structures. At the same time, such corporations do not aim at the complete and final eradication of centralized mechanisms, because the final replacement will lead to instant bankruptcy, which would be a clear contradiction of economic feasibility on the basis of which the three contradictions described above were born. Such sprouts of dying hierarchy and detached decentralization become connecting, interstitial nodes between centralized and hidden systems through economic rationalization. The result of such actions are the concepts of “Web3” technologies.

Web3

The idea of ​​”Web3″ * becomes a continuation, an evolution of “Web 1.0” and “Web 2.0”, which, being centralized systems, represent different methods of content management. For example, the essence of “Web 1.0” was the creation of basic information (content) on the side of the service itself. In other words, the service itself produced all the main content, and customers were only its consumers. The concept of “Web 2.0” has replaced this mechanism, through the mixing of functions. Now clients can not only absorb content, but also create it, while the functions of the service become only editing existing content, as a form of residual actions. “Web3” eliminates this remainder, transferring all actions exclusively to the client side. There are two main opposing opinions about the concept of “Web3” [1].

1. The term “Web3” is a project in which users will take back control over their data and generated content, thereby making decentralization a dominated form of expression of network communications over a centralized economic component. There will be no more monopolistic corporations that want to increase their capital on the basis of confidential information, through its sale. Plus, markets are opening up for ordinary users who are able to exchange their content for a monetary component without direct centralized intermediaries. [2][3].

2. The term “Web3” is just a marketing ploy that plays on the project of a decentralized future without corporations and monopolies. Due to this component, the benefit is received exclusively (or in large part) by those who develop, sponsor or invest in such applications. At the same time, the economic component of “Web3” technologies, which at first are libertarian, will gradually strive according to market laws to the concentration of capital, and as a result, again to the centralization of all possible resources (monetary, information, communication) [4]. It is also assumed that such “Web3” can be extremely problematic and questionable in its implementations. [5].

It cannot be unequivocally said that any of these opinions is wrong or completely correct. In their totality, such judgments adhere to extreme positions, while the essence of “Web3” is more hybrid in its content. That is why the correctness or incorrectness of two judgments becomes one meaningful synthesis, in which the first sprouts of decentralization with the property of client-safe applications and the widespread monopolization of capital with the binding of hierarchical systems appear simultaneously.

The contradiction testifies to the insufficient maturity of hidden systems, but at the same time, points to the evolution factor of centralized structures turning into decentralized computing. Thus, the very vector of development of such concepts and technologies is gradually directed towards the security of the client side and the “decomposition” of centralized connections (which contradicts the first judgment about constant monopolization), but at the same time building such a vector is only a secondary task, because the primary goal is undoubtedly a benefit, an increase in capital by monopoly corporations (which contradicts the second judgment about the dominance of decentralized forms).

Conclusion

As a result, many Web3 technologies become only a way, a kind of mechanism for the transition from centralized monopolistic forms to hidden networks, by modifying and mixing different goals alien to each other due to the need for economic rationalization and the need for information security in a contradictory form.

*In addition to the term “Web3”, there is also the term “Web 3.0”. These terms are not synonymous, because the former mainly refers to the concepts of building client-safe applications with an economic model, while the latter refers to the interconnection of heterogeneous networks for the possibility of automatic reading and / or information exchange (semantic web). The last concept in the literal sense of the word is also not implemented like the first one, but it is contradictory and, through its negation, is recreated in the parsing of open WEB information, completely non-standardized, but widely practiced. Both concepts are a parallel consequence of the development of the stages “Web 1.0” and “Web 2.0”, and do not contradict each other.

Bibliography

1. Take off or not – two different points of view on Web3 [Электронный ресурс]. – Access mode: https://habr.com/ru/company/vasexperts/blog/670964/ (date of access: 10/30/2022).

2. Dabit, N. What is Web3? The Decentralized Internet of the Future Explained [Электронный ресурс]. – Access mode: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/what-is-web3/ (date of access: 30.10.2022).

3. Reshetnikova, M. Without owners and censorship: what will be the Internet of the Web3 era [Электронный ресурс]. – Access mode: https://trends.rbc.ru/trends/industry/629070a99a79470ec4bdb673 (date of access: 30.10.2022).

4. Ingram, D. What is web3? It’s Silicon Valley’s latest identity crisis [Электронный ресурс]. – Access mode: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/web3-s-silicon-valleys-latest-identity-crisis-rcna9846 (date of access: 30.10.2022).

5. Marklinkspike, M. My first impressions of web3 [Электронный ресурс]. – Access mode: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html (date of access: 30.10.2022).