本文来自微信公众号：PUPU Talk（ID：gh_c28f8594d272），作者：老计，原文标题：《Web 3.0是拯救人类走出经济低迷的神话，还是昙花一现》，头图来自：视觉中国
Web 3.0 可以说是 2022 年最火热的赛道，无数投资机构与创业者涌入其中，各路媒体大肆宣传，号召创业者和大厂高管广泛加入，一起推动人类社会经济走出低迷，BAT、FANNG也未能免俗，纷纷建立团队研发相关产品，唯恐掉队，被时代抛弃。
Web 3.0 can be said to be the hottest track in 2022, with numerous investment agencies and entrepreneurs pouring into it, mass media outlets calling for broad participation by entrepreneurs and large-scale plant managers, together to promote the socio-economic recovery of the human race.
如果我们仔细审视 Web 3.0 的种种神话，似乎没能如大家所愿的那么美好。抱着对 Web 3.0 的审视，提出了一些思考与认知，不过这仅仅是一家之言，如果能引起广泛关注与讨论，那么目的也就达到了。
If we look closely at the myths of Web 3.0, it doesn't seem as good as you would have liked. With a look at Web 3.0, we have come up with some thoughts and perceptions, but it's just a home, and if we get a lot of attention and discussion, the goal is achieved.
一、虚构的数据所有权，换汤不换药
Web 3.0 有一个很宏大的构想，就是通过去中心化的区块链技术，把数据所有权还给用户，从而打破巨头的垄断。
Web 3.0 has an ambitious idea of returning ownership of data to users through decentralised block chain technology, thus breaking the monopoly of giants.
然而魔鬼总隐藏在细节之中，一旦我们深究数据所有权的细节，就会发现这个构想很难实现。
But the devil hides in detail, and once we look into the details of the ownership of the data, it's hard to realize the idea of strong.
所谓数据所有权，指的是拥有者自由支配的权利，法律意义上的物权。
在 Web 2.0 时代，平台拥有对用户数据的绝对支配权，包括：修改、删除、隐藏、降权、分析、回滚、转让、销售、抵押等各项权利。理论上，除了创建数据需要用户自己来完成，平台可以想做什么就做什么。
In the Web 2.0 era, the platform has absolute control over user data, including rights to modify, delete, hide, descend, analyse, roll back, transfer, sell, mortgage, etc. theoretically, the platform can do whatever it wants to do except create the data itself.
与之相比，Web 3.0的用户权利却小得可怜。
By contrast,
Web 3.0 声称夺回数据所有权，交还给用户，其实只是把数据存储在不可篡改的公链（或侧链），用户并没有对数据的实际支配权。相比大平台，其实相比Web 2.0 时代的用户颇有不如，一旦上链，用户无法进行修改、删除、隐藏等一系列重要权限的操作，甚至连创建都受到智能合约、社区规则及 DAO 的限制。
Web 3.0 claims to have regained ownership of the data and to return it to the user, but simply to store the data in an undisguised public chain , where the user has no real control over the data. Compared to the larger platform, the user of the Web 2.0 era is worse than the user of the Web 2.0 era, and once placed on the chain, the user is unable to modify, delete, hide, or even create a series of important privileges that are restricted by smart contracts, community rules and DAO.
在模式上，用户只是把钱（数据）从私有银行（平台服务器）转到了公有银行（共识节点），在理论上更安全一些（也仅仅是理论上），可最关键的所有权的性质并未发生任何改变，银行管理者（公链运营方）或大股东（算力方）依然掌握生杀大权（硬分叉，回滚，话语权）。
uses in mode (data) from private banks
(notes > > (notesrbsrbs.) > (notes.
在收益上，Web 3.0 的模式（如空投）与 Web 2.0（如知识付费）没有本质区别，都是运营方和项目方来主导整体政策与执行策略，甚至 Web 3.0 代价更高（如 gas，NFT 铸造成本）。只是由于投机市场的存在，让现阶段 Web 3.0 的收益看似很美，但这不是健康的商业模式，其实是难以持久的。
In terms of benefits, the pattern of Web 3.0 is not fundamentally different between the operator and the project to lead the overall policy and implementation strategy, and even the higher cost of
在组织上，Web 3.0 的DAO 与公司股东大会非常类似，都是凭股本拥有投票权，只不过初始股本的获取不一定需要付费。但同样的，小股东是没有话语权的，由于投票权取决于股本，而股本又可以在二级市场买卖，因此与传统的二级市场一样，必然会导致权力向鲸鱼、矿工、 大机构集中。
At the organizational level, the DAO of Web 3.0 is very similar to the general meeting of shareholders of a company, all of which have the right to vote on the basis of equity, except that the acquisition of initial equity does not necessarily require payment. Similarly, small shareholders have no voice, and since voting rights depend on equity, which can be bought and sold in secondary markets, as in traditional secondary markets, they inevitably lead to a concentration of power towards whales, miners, and large institutions.
有链上 FBI 之称的数据平台 Chainalysis 曾详细分析过十个 DAO 治理分布，发现在几个主要 DAO 中，不到 1% 的持有者拥有 90% 的投票权。
Chainalysis, a data platform known as the FBI on the chain, analysed in detail 10 DAO governance distributions and found that less than 1% of the holders of had 90% voting rights in several major DAOs.
从更深层的权力结构来说，Web 2.0 的权力来源于资本，Web 3.0 的权力来源于算力，其实两者是一回事。
Deeper power structures, the power of
想要真正实现用户数据所有权，必须让权力来源于用户，也就是将数据放在用户自己的保险箱里（个人数据库），万维网创始人 Timothy Berners Lee 的 Solid 项目才是正确的方向。
To truly realize ownership of user data, power must come from the user, i.e. the Solid project that puts the data in the user's own safe , the founder of the World Wide Web, Timothy Berners Lee, is in the right direction.
事实上 Web 3.0 的概念也是这老爷子在 2006 年提出的（最早的定义是语义网），区块链只是借用了这个概念。而中本聪开发区块链的本意是为了解决金融中心化的问题，和 Web 3.0 的目标风马牛不相及。
Indeed, the concept of Web 3.0 was also proposed by the old man in 2006 as , and the block chain was simply borrowed. The purpose of the chain was to solve the problem of financial centralization, unlike the goal of Web 3.0.
将区块链技术与 Web 3.0 结合，背后的推动力量主要是 a16z 这样的资本，出于商业上的考量是可以理解的，给自己的事业冠以高尚的道德名义，这是人类几千年文明史扩张的惯用模式。
The combination of block chain technology with Web 3.0 is largely driven by capital such as a16z, which, for commercial reasons, is understandable and gives its own cause a noble moral name, which is a common model for the expansion of the history of civilization for thousands of years.
不过，即便区块链借用了概念，也没办法实现 Web 3.0 的目标，因为从技术上就不现实。
However, even if the block chain borrows the concept, it will not be possible to achieve the goal of Web 3.0 because it is technically unrealistic.
二、Web 3.0 的技术限制，补充而非取代
目前两大核心主链，比特币区块容量在 GB 范围，以太坊在 TB 范围，而 Web 2.0 的数据总量为 ZB 级别，即 10 亿倍于区块链（1ZB=1024^3 TB），并且每年以指数增长（根据 IDC 研究，2020 年人类一共创建或复制了 64 ZB 数据，到 2025 年，全球数据总量将达到 163 ZB）。
There are two main core chains, bitcoin blocks with capacity in the range of GB, in the range of TB, while the total data on Web 2.0 is ZB-level, i.e., 1 billion times the number of blocks by 2025.
以目前区块链技术能力，想承载这样庞大规模的数据量是完全不现实的，万分之一的规模都做不到。
, with its current technical capabilities in block chains, is completely unrealistic to carry data of this magnitude, one in ten.
众所周知，区块链的 TPS 主要受 ① 节点规模、② 区块大小及出块间隔、③ 交易字节量三个因素的影响。其中：
As is well known, the TPS of the block chain is mainly influenced by three factors: the size of one node, the size of two blocks and their spacing, and the number of bytes of transactions.
① 决定了去中心化的程度，必然有个下限（1 个节点就成中心化服务器了）。
1 In determining the extent of decentralisation, there must be a threshold
② 和 ③ 决定了节点的硬件与网络带宽要求，必然有个上限（如果要求太高，也会导致中心化）。
2 and 3 determine the hardware and network bandwidth requirements for nodes, and there must be a ceiling .
这也意味着，区块链的数据存储和计算效率在理论上必然存在一个极限，且远远低于 Web 2.0。
It also means that the data storage and computational efficiency of the
为了解决这个问题，聪明的开发者们想了很多扩容方法，比如隔离验证、闪电网络、RSK 侧链、分片、分层，以及调整共识机制的 DPOS 等。
In order to address this problem, intelligent developers have come up with a number of augmenting methods, such as isolation certification, lightning grids, RSK side chains, fragments, stratification, and the adaptation of the Consensus mechanism of the DPOS.
但这些思路绝大部分都治标不治本，由于 CAP 理论，想承载更多的数据，只有一种可能性，就是把全部数据放在链下，链上只保留一个哈希值，通过零知识证明等密码学来证明真伪。
But the vast majority of these ideas are not curing the symptoms. Because of the CAP theory, there is only one possibility to carry more data, namely, to put all the data under the chain, to keep only one Hashi value on the chain, and to prove authenticity through cryptography such as zero-knowledge proof.
但这又引出另外一个问题，链下的数据怎么保证去中心化？
But this raises another question. How can the data in the `strung' chain guarantee decentralisation?
于是这又涉及到各种去中心化网络协议，比如大名鼎鼎的 IPFS。
So it's about decentralizing the network protocols, like the famous IPFS.
很多人把 IPFS 视为区块链最重要的基建，不得不说，这想法还是单纯了一些。
A lot of people think of IPFS as the most important infrastructure of the block chain, and I have to say, it's a simple idea.
首先，从成本上，数据存储并不单纯是存储本身的问题，还包括了数据库、CDN、应用后台框架、前端等一系列基础设施，这整套系统云厂商都可以提供现成的工具和服务，如果换成 IPFS，整个技术体系都要重新建立，成本谁来出？小厂没能力，大厂自己就是中心，为何要革自己的命？
First, at cost, data storage is not simply a matter of storage itself. It also includes a range of infrastructure such as databases, CDNs, application backstage frameworks, front-ends, etc. The system’s cloud producers can provide ready tools and services. If IPFS is replaced, the entire technology system needs to be re-established.
其次，从供需上，一个去中心化网络必须要建立平衡的生态才能持久发展。Web 3.0 需求方倒是十分充足，毕竟大家都想不受限制的自由下载数据，但供给方是谁？在中心化的 HTTP 上，供给方大都是拥有版权的大厂，比如音视频网站，他们供给的动力是流量，但在去中心化网络上，并不存在流量中心的概念。
Second, the supply and demand side of
如果指望用户自己供给，就存在一个版权问题，如果只是出于无偿分享精神，上传没有版权的电影，还可以说处于灰色地带，但 IPFS 有 Filecoin 经济激励，还是触犯法律了。根据 Web 2.0 的经验，80% 的沉默用户，20% 的活跃用户，1% 的内容生产者，这种比例是无法维系一个供需平衡的生态的。
If users are expected to provide for themselves, there is a copyright problem, and if the uploading of unlicensed films is only in a grey area, it can be said, in a spirit of free sharing, the IPFS has Filecoin economic incentives or is in conflict with the law. , based on Web 2.0 experience, 80% of silent users, 20% of active users, and 1% of content producers cannot maintain an ecological balance between supply and demand.
再者，从利益上，IPFS 是在割运营商的肉，Filecoin 如果做大，谁还会买运营商的专线？但问题是 Filecoin 的运行又必须依赖运营商的服务，这等于是吃人家的饭还要打烂人家的饭碗，别忘记当初运营商是怎么封杀 BT 的。
Moreover, in the interest of
最后，从监管上，IPFS 是没办法保证数据合法性的，黄赌毒各种非法交易横行，一旦与灰色产业挂钩，被封禁就是板上钉钉的事。
Finally, in terms of regulation, IPFS is not able to guarantee the validity of the data , and the illegal trade in yellow bets, once linked to the grey industry, is blocked.
其实从技术上来说，IPFS 是一个革命性的产品，如果在互联网伊始阶段就提出并实施，也许真的能实现。但如今的互联网产业太庞大了，成本太多、利益太多，历史包袱和遗留问题太多，想另起炉灶几乎不可能。
Technically speaking, IPFS is a revolutionary product that might actually be realized if it were proposed and implemented at the very beginning of the Internet. But today’s Internet industry is too large, too costly, too profitable, too many historical burdens and problems, and it is almost impossible to start another stove.
现在我们回到最初的问题上来，思考一下其中的逻辑：
Now, let's go back to the first question and think about the logic of it:
全球数据量太大，区块链技术无法承载，必须扩容；
The global volume of data is too large for block chain technology to carry and must be expanded;
由于技术的制约，治本的扩容方案只能把数据放到链下，也就是建立一个去中心化的网络；
Due to technical constraints, the solution to the root causes can only place the data under the chain, i.e., a decentralised network;
建立一个取代 HTTP 的去中心化网络不可行，因为全球数据量太大。
The establishment of a decentralised network to replace HTTP is not feasible, as global data volumes are too large.
一个完美的死循环。
A perfect death cycle.
当然，这一切的前提是 Web 3.0 取代 Web 2.0，成为下一代互联网，一如当年 Web 2.0 取代 Web 1.0 成为主流，这在理论上就不现实。如果 Web 3.0 只是作为 Web 2.0 的一种补充，在金融等某些领域发挥作用，那还是可以做到的。
Of course, the premise of all this is that Web 3.0 replaces Web 2.0 and becomes the next generation of the Internet, which is not theoretically realistic if web 2.0 replaces Web 1.0 in the same year. If Web 3.0 is merely a complement to Web 2.0, it can work in certain areas, such as finance.
不过这样一来，也不适合称之为下一代互联网或是新的宇宙了。
But that's not the way to call it the next generation of the Internet or the new universe.
三、Web 3.0的产品困境，杀手级应用在哪里？
外界在质疑区块链产品时，有一个非常经典的问题：为何没出现杀手级应用？
When the outside world questioned the product of the block chain, there was a very classic question: Why didn't there be a hit-and-kill application?
为了不产生歧义，我们可以试着把杀手级应用做个定义：能够持续一年 MAU 超过 1000 万的应用。
In order not to create ambiguity, can try to define killer-class applications: applications that last more than 10 million years for MAU.
在 Web 2.0 的世界，MAU 大于 1 亿的应用比比皆是，而在 Web 3.0 的世界只有：
In the Web 2.0 world, applications of MAU greater than 100 million are common, while in the Web 3.0 world there are only:
1. 交易所；
Exchange;
2. 钱包；
2. Wallet;
3. 没了。
3. No more.
这可不像是代表下一代互联网，有无限未来前景的样子。
This does not seem to represent the next generation of the Internet with unlimited prospects for the future.
用 Web 3.0 还处于野蛮生长期，基础建设不完整，这种借口是说不过去的。
The pretext that web 3.0 is still barbarous and long and that infrastructure is incomplete cannot be justified.
从 2008 年中本聪发明区块链技术到现在，整整 14 年；
From mid-2008, Ben was able to invent block chain technology to the present, for a total of 14 years;
V 神 2014 年创立以太坊并引入智能合约概念，8 年；
V God created Ether House in 2014 and introduced the concept of smart contracts, 8 years;
Juan Benet 2014 年设计 IPFS，8 年；
Juan Benet 2014 design IPFS, 8 years;
The DAO 项目 2016 年众筹，6 年；
The DAO project was popularized in 2016, 6 years;
第一个真正的 NFT 作品 CryptoPunks 在 2017 年诞生，5 年……
The first real NFT work, CryptoPunks, was born in 2017, five years...
我们再对比一下 Web 2.0 的历史。
Let's compare Web 2.0 history.
iPhone 1 于 2007 年上市，在 2008～2010 短短几年间，WhatsApp、Uber、Instagram 等纯移动端产品就如同雨后春笋一样纷纷涌现，各大厂也相继推出移动端产品；iPhone 4 于 2010 年上市并进入中国市场，腾讯 2011 年推出微信，新浪微博 2012 年全面转向移动端；中国 4G 基站于 2014 年基本建设完成，2015～2016 年间，滴滴、抖音相继成立……
iPhone 1 was listed in 2007 and, in just a few years from 2008 to 2010, pure mobile end products such as WhatsApp, Uber, Instagram have emerged, as has rain and rain, and large factories have introduced mobile end products; iPhone 4 was listed in 2010 and entered the Chinese market; micro-letters were launched in 2011 and Sina Weibo was turned to the mobile end in 2012; China's 4G base station was completed in 2014 and its drops and shakes were established between 2015 and 2016...
相信80后、90后这一代人，都清晰地记得当年移动应用市场的繁荣。反观 Web 3.0 ，每天都有数百个项目上线，不到一年消失殆尽，除了交易所和钱包，你能讲出 2～3 个自己常用的产品吗？
The 80-and-90 generation remembers clearly the boom in the mobile application market. On the contrary, Web 3.0, hundreds of projects go online every day, disappear in less than a year. Can you tell two to three of your usual products, apart from exchanges and wallets?
这是为什么呢？
Why is that?
因为 Web 3.0 是没有用户红利期的。
because Web 3.0 does not have a user dividend period.
道理很简单。互联网经过 30 年的发展，在需求端，用户已经完全饱和了，无论是用户规模、习惯、时长、还是衣食住行各场景下的应用，都已经发展到了极致，用户每天的空闲时间和消费能力就这么多，无论出现什么新产品，都不可能再挤出水来。
The answer is simple. After 30 years of Internet development, at the demand side, users are completely saturated, whether in terms of the size, habits, duration, or food and clothing of the users, the applications have developed to the extreme, and
这和 Web 2.0 取代 Web 1.0 的环境完全不同。
It's completely different from the Web 2.0 environment that replaced Web 1.0.
在 Web 1.0 时代，手机还不普及，用户一旦离开电脑，就有大把的空闲时间，而诸如打车、外卖、社交、娱乐等各种生活需求，直到移动互联网发展后才逐渐丰富起来。因此，Web 2.0 有长达 10 年的红利期，用户规模、时长、消费需求都迅猛增长。
In the Web 1.0 age, mobile phones were not widely available, and once users left the computer, they had plenty of free time, while various life needs, such as taxis, take-out, socialization, and entertainment, were gradually enriched until the mobile Internet developed. So, Web 2.0 had a 10-year dividend, with users growing rapidly in size, duration, and consumption demand.
Web 3.0 却没有这个红利期，一上来就是和 Web 2.0 的零和博弈。
用户每花在 Web 3.0 的 1 分钟和 1 元钱，都要相应的减少在 Web 2.0 的投入。想玩元宇宙游戏吗？那就少开黑。可是王者荣耀比什么元宇宙好玩多了，为什么要选择后者？
Users need to reduce their input to Web 2.0 for every minute and $1 spent on Web 3.0. Do you want to play a meta-cosm game? Less black. But the king's glory is more fun than any meta-cosm. Why choose the latter?
同样的问题也存在于 Web 3.0 的所有产品和服务，用户为什么选择你？
The same problem exists with all of Web 3.0 products and services. Why do users choose you?
由于我们之前谈到过的技术问题，Web 3.0 在效率上远远无法同 Web 2.0 相比，而效率又在很大程度上决定了服务和用户体验，因此在 Web 2.0 的应用已经全面渗透各个领域的背景下，Web 3.0 的产品想找到爆发的机会，很难很难。
Because of the technical problems we have talked about earlier, Web 3.0 is far less efficient than Web 2.0, and efficiency largely determines service and user experience, so it is very difficult for Web 3.0 products to find the opportunity to explode in the context of the application of Web 2.0, which has fully permeated all fields.
Web 3.0 真正的杀手锏是数据所有权和对应的收益，即把所有权归还用户，由此而产生的收益也从大厂那里夺回来给用户。
这个逻辑听上去挺打动人，但我们之前也已经分析过，所谓数据所有权就是个噱头，真正的卖点还是钱。
This logic sounds impressive, but we've already analysed it before, and it's called strong's ownership of the data, the real point of sale or the money.
其实每一个从事 Web 3.0 项目的同学都心知肚明，白皮书的愿景是写给谁看的，用户是来图什么的，只不过没人捅破这层窗户纸罢了。
Indeed, every classmate working on the Web 3.0 project knew that the vision of the white paper was to whom it was written, that the users came to map it or something, and that no one had broken the window paper.
当然图财也没什么不对，钱才是这个世界上最大的刚需，只不过 Web 3.0 又不是印钞机，给用户这钱从哪儿来的？又能否持久？这才是问题的关键。
Of course, there's nothing wrong with making money, and money is the world's biggest need, except that Web 3.0 is not a cash-printer, where does the money come from? Is it sustainable? That's the point.
四、Web 3.0 的商业陷阱，去中心化的数据不值钱
我们先来看 Web 2.0 的经济模型：
Let's start with the Web 2.0 economic model:
在用户端，个人贡献数据，并获得免费产品服务；
on the user side, personal contribution of data and access to free product services;
在平台端，数据被打包卖给广告商，并获得收益；
at the platform end, data are packaged to advertisers and receive benefits;
在企业端，付费投放广告卖出产品，并获得收益。
at the end of the enterprise, pays for advertising to sell the product and gets the proceeds.
而 Web 3.0 的经济模型是这样的：
And the economic model of Web 3.0 is as follows:
在用户端，贡献个人数据获取激励，并通过手中 token 升值获益；
contributes to personal data acquisition incentives on the user side and benefits from token appreciation in hand;
在公链端，运营方提供共识机制，矿工提供记账服务，并通过手中 token 升值获益；
at the end of the public chain, where operators provide consensus mechanisms, miners provide bookkeeping services and benefit from token appreciation in their hands; 在项目端，项目方提供产品服务，并通过手中 token 升值获益。
provides product services at the end of the project and benefits from the token appreciation in hand.
两者有什么本质的不同呢？
What's the difference between the two?
Web 2.0 的钱是有锚定标记的，就是企业所销售的产品成本。简单来说，数据的价值=产品销售价格 - 广告成本，如果这个值高于产品成本，那么企业就会花钱投放，如果低于，就没人买广告了。
Web 2.0 money is anchored, which is the cost of the product sold by the enterprise. simply states that the value of the data = the price of the sale of the product - advertising costs, if that value is higher than the cost of the product, then the company will spend it, and if it is lower, no one will buy it.
这和宏观经济学中的黄金储备或石油绑定是一个道理，有锚定物，市场波动就是可控的。为什么在黑市中个人数据如此不值钱，几百块就可以买到数百万条？就是因为有产品成本这个压舱石。
That's the case with macroeconomic gold reserves or oil bindings, with anchors, and market fluctuations can be controlled. Why are hundreds of dollars worth so much in the black market?
在这种传统的经济模型中，普通用户的收益很小，但是稳定持久。比如知识付费，用户的收益来源于企业的产品销售利润，企业挣了钱会花更多的钱买广告，平台收取广告费，再拿出一部分来激励贡献更多数据的用户，产生更大的广告价值，这样经济就流通起来了。
In this traditional economic model, ordinary users gain little, but steady and long-lasting benefits. For example, knowledge payments, users earn more from the company's profits from selling its products, businesses earn more money for advertising, platforms charge more for advertising, and part of it provides incentives for users who contribute more data, generating greater advertising value, so that the economy moves.
但 Web 3.0 却不是这样，数据是没有锚定物的，可以随意叫价，比如一块虚拟土地可以卖几十上百万美元，价格的波动完全取决于市场共识。
This is not the case with 由于各利益方都希望通过手中 token 升值获益，于是就形成了巨大的投机市场，大 V 的一条 Twitter，资本的左手倒右手，庄家的利好或利空消息，随便一点风吹草动都会引起市场的剧烈变化。 Because all stakeholders want to benefit from the token appreciation in their hands, there is a huge speculative market, a big V. Twitter, capital's left hand to the right, the realtor's good or easy news, and a whirlwind can cause a dramatic change in the market. 在这种新兴的经济模型中，因为资金、技术、信息、话语权等因素的制约，普通用户几乎不可能获益，即便挣到了一些钱也不是从大厂那里夺回来的，而是其他后来的用户。所以很多人认为 Web 3.0 是庞氏骗局并非完全没有道理。 In this emerging economic model, it is almost impossible for ordinary users to benefit because of constraints such as money, technology, information, voice, etc., even if some money is earned, it is not from the big factory, but from other later users. so many people think that web 3.0 is a Ponzi scheme. 一个好的经济模型，不应该是一小群投机客的狂欢，而是广大人民群众都能从中获取到价值。 A good economic model should not be a party for a small group of speculators, but one from which the people at large can derive their value. 当然我们不能太苛责一个新兴的事物，毕竟 Web 3.0 的经济模型还在摸索阶段。 Of course, we can't be too hard on an emerging thing, after all, the economic model of Web 3.0 is still at the exploitation stage. 不过有一点是可以肯定的，对于广告这种经济模式来说，Web 3.0 的数据天然不如 Web 2.0 值钱，变现价值极低。 But one thing's for sure: 这又是为什么呢？很简单，Web 3.0 的数据维度太少。 And why is that? Simple, Web 3.0 data dimensions are too small. Web 2.0 的个人数据，包含了三个层面： Web 2.0 Personal Data, covering three levels: ① 用户属性数据：设备号、手机号、地理位置、好友关系等； 1 User property data: device number, cell phone number, geographic location, friendship, etc.; ② 用户行为数据：浏览、点击、关注、点赞、转发、收藏等； 2 User behaviour data: browse, click, focus, praise, forward, collection, etc.; ③ 用户内容数据：用户主动发内容，图文与视频。 3 User content data: user active content, graphics and videos. ①② 共同构成了互联网广告的基础，通过 API + cookie 记录，中心化数据库实现用户分析。反而是 ③ 没那么重要，因为规模太小，仅占比 1%（当然，对于平台来说很重要，因为需要获客）。 12 Together form the basis for Internet advertising, centralizing the database through API + cookies. On the contrary, 3 is not so important, because it is too small to be compared to 1% 但对于 Web 3.0 来说，缺乏 ①② 数据（至少链上没有），只有 ③，且不是结构化数据，无法直接应用，那么在广告商看来，就没办法帮我精准获客与销售，即便你数据都是真实的，可找不到潜在消费者那又有什么意义？ But for Web 3.0, there is a lack of 12 data , only 3 and not structured data that cannot be applied directly, so what's the point of finding potential consumers if your data is real? 更关键在于，Web 3.0 的去中心化与匿名机制，与广告这种经济模式是相悖的，因为广告的本质就是中心化。广告，就是广而告之，真正有价值的不是用户数据本身，而是经过结构化处理，并做标签分类、分析和建模的用户数据库。只有一堆非结构化的数据，难道需要一个个去和用户单聊吗？ What is more crucial is that the decentralization and anonymity mechanism of 广告是 Web 2.0 时代最核心的商业模式，如果想套用，那么 Web 3.0 就需要大幅增加个人数据的记录，但这又涉及我们之前讨论的区块链数据容量，一切又绕回去了。 Advertisement is the core business model of the Web 2.0 era, and if it is to be applied, Web 3.0 will require a significant increase in the recording of personal data, which in turn involves the volume of block-chain data that we discussed earlier, and everything goes back. 五、Web 3.0 的社会价值，追求效率还是公平 目前对于 Web 1.0~3 的定义都是错误的。 The current definition of Web 1.0-3 is wrong. 早在 Web 1.0 时代，互联网就已经实现了可读 + 可写 + 可拥有。 As early as the Web 1.0 age, the Internet had become readable + writing + possession. 第一批用 14.4K 猫上网的老网民都应该记得，在雅虎、新浪这些门户出现之前，新闻组、论坛、聊天室、IM、游戏及个人站就有了，那时的互联网才是真正的去中心化，所有数据都是用户创造（自己搭站），用户存储（租 ISP 服务器），用户收益（站长广告），只是当正规的商业公司兴起后，权力才开始逐渐集中。 The first group of 14.4K cats to access the Internet should remember that there were news groups, forums, chat rooms, IM, games and personal stations before the opening of the Yahoos, Siva portals, when the Internet was truly decentralized and all the data was created by the user and the user's gains 为什么互联网会从早期的去中心化演化为今天的中心化？ Why did the Internet evolve from early decentralisation to today? 其真实原因简单的令人发指：因为大家的注意力是有限的。 The real reason for this is simply appalling: because everyone's attention is limited. 在 PC 时代，各种网站层出不穷，网络小白记不住那么多域名，只能留几个最简单的常用，每一类的网站有一两个就够了。 At the time of the PC era, a variety of sites had emerged, and the network could not remember so many domain names, leaving only a few of the simplest commons, and one or two of each type of site would suffice. 在 APP 时代，虽然不用记域名了，但手机容量和性能的制约，每一类的 APP 依然只装一两个。 In the APP era, although domain names are no longer required, mobile phone capacity and performance constraints limit each type of APP to only one or two. 这就是为什么互联网任何一个垂直赛道都只能容纳 2～3 个竞争者，剩下的连汤都喝不到。因为不记得你是谁啊。 That's why any vertical track on the Internet can only accommodate two to three competitors, and the rest can't even drink soup. Because I can't remember who you are. 这个道理朴素到都不好意思展开讲。 It's so simple that I don't want to talk about it. 不过如果我们稍微深入思考一下，就会发现同样的道理在 Web 3.0 也成立，因为用户没变化，还是这些人。 But if we think a little deeper, we'll find that the same thing is true in Web 3.0, because the users are the same, these people. 套用大刘的黑暗森林理论来说，就是： In the light of Dao Liu's dark forest theory, 第一、生存是产品的第一需要。 First, survival is the product's first need. 第二、产品不断增长和扩张，但大家的总注意力保持不变。 尽管很多 Web 3.0 的参与者抱着美好的愿望，希望创造一个全新的去中心化互联网，但很遗憾，不管多么努力，最终的结局一定是走向垄断。 Despite the good intentions of many of the Web 3.0 participants to create a new decentralised Internet, 无论 DeFi、GameFi、SocialFi，任何一个赛道最终只会有 2～3 个玩家做大，形成垂直领域的垄断，一如社交的微信，短视频的抖音，O2O 的美团。 Regardless of DeFi, GameFi and SocialFi, any track will eventually have only two to three players big enough to form a vertical monopoly, like social micro-letters, short video tremors, O2O clusters. 其实互联网从自由竞争走向垄断是十分自然的，因为互联网的核心竞争力是效率，通过数据化来解决现实世界的信息流通问题。在这种竞争环境中，越是中心化就越有效率，越能提供更好的产品与服务，毕竟大平台的资金与资源是小团队没法比的。 Indeed, it is natural for the Internet to move from free competition to monopolization, because the core competitiveness of the Internet is efficiency, which solves the real world’s information flow problems through digitalization. In this competitive environment, the more efficient it is, the more efficient it is to provide better products and services, after all, the larger platform’s funds and resources are not comparable to those of small teams. 从更宏观一点的视角，人类社会几千年的发展就是在不断追求效率的提升，绝对的自由与公正只在原始社会昙花一现，之后就一路迈向效率的道路狂奔不止。 From a more macro perspective, the development of human society for thousands of years is a constant quest for efficiency, with absolute freedom and justice occurring only in primitive societies, and then on the road to efficiency. 这不是说大家不需要公平，而是效率的优先级更高，至少在服务领域如此。 This is not to say that there is no need for equity, but rather a higher priority for efficiency, at least in the area of services. 只不过，在内卷时期，大家对公平的需求会比平时多一些。区块链已经诞生 14 年， Web 3.0 概念已经提出了 16 年，为什么到了这两年才火？因为经济下行了嘛，大家对公平开始重视起来了。 It's just that, in the inner volume, there's a lot more need for equity than usual. 14 years have passed since the block chain was born, and the Web 3.0 concept has been proposed for 16 years. 因此从这个角度来说，Web 3.0 的火爆得益于历史周期的波动，但长期来看，实在是违背宇宙和人类社会的自然规律。也许，在另一个宇宙，会是不同的故事。 So, from this point of view, the explosion of Web 3.0 benefits from the volatility of the historical cycle, but in the long run it is contrary to the natural laws of the universe and human society. Perhaps, in another universe, it is a different story. 本文来自微信公众号：PUPU Talk（ID：gh_c28f8594d272），作者：老计
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论