我们之前爆锤过 NFT ，这次准备爆锤一下 Web 3.0。
We've had a hammer before. We're ready for a hammer this time, Web 3.0.
早就信誓旦旦想锤死它。
I've sworn I'd hammer it to death.
还是 360 度无死角爆锤吗？
Or a 360-degree death-free hammer?
对，360 度无死角爆锤。
Yeah, 360 degrees no dead-horn hammer.
现在我们是大卫锤什么就找我们来恰饭。
Now we're David Hammers and we're here for dinner.
对，我们刚聊完NFT 以后还是有一定影响力的，全网大几十万播放。结果一堆 NFT 项目找过来找我们恰饭，感觉这是不是一个阴谋。想让我们瞬间恰个饭，打自己的脸。
Yeah, we've been talking about NFT, and we've got some influence, and we've got hundreds of thousands on the Internet. And there's a bunch of NFT projects that come looking for us, and it feels like it's not a conspiracy. We just want to hit ourselves in the face.
还好我们挺住了，都给它拒绝了。
It's a good thing we made it. We all turned it down.
我们要不要大概科普一下 Web 3.0 到底是什么？先简单说一下我的理解，我觉得了解 Web 3.0，就先要了解 Web 1.0 和 Web 2.0 到底是什么。
Let's just say what the Web 3.0 is. Let's just say that I understand, and I think we know what the Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 are.
举最简单的例子，Web 1.0 就是新浪和搜狐，像门户网站一样，内容的生产者、管理权，直接受益者全都是平台。
To give the simplest example, Web 1.0 is a new wave and a search for foxes, like the portal, where content is produced, managed, and the direct beneficiaries are platforms.
Web 2.0 就像现在的 B 站抖音，内容生产者主要在个人，UGC 的内容，但内容的管理权和受益者都在平台。
Web 2.0 Like the current B stand-off, content producers are mainly in individual, UGC content, but content management and beneficiaries are on the platform.
有些人是这么总结的，但说实话我不是特别赞同，直接受益者也完全归于平台，这个我们一会可以再聊。
Some do, but to be honest, I am not particularly in favour of it, and the direct beneficiaries are also fully part of the platform, which we can talk about later.
Web 3.0 说白了内容的生产者，管理权还有受益者全都归于个人。
Web 3.0 Producers of content, management rights and beneficiaries are all attributed to individuals.
很多人鼓吹 Web 3.0 就是说去中心化，本身就基于区块链技术而做的，大家就觉得不让平台中间再割一刀，没必要用平台。
Many advocates that to centralize /a, which is itself based on block chain technology, and that it is not necessary for the platform to be cut again.
你们觉得 Web 3.0 到底是真有用吗？还是大忽悠？
Do you think web 3.0 is really useful, or is it a lie?
我谈一下我的理解。首先这里有一个概念的偷换，Web 3.0 所强调的去中心化和区块链技术的去中心化，不是一个去中心化，怎么理解呢？
Let me get to my understanding. First of all, there's a concept switch here. Web 3.0 emphasizes decentralization and decentralisation of block chains, not decentralisation. How do you understand that?
比如我们所有人都把视频上传到了 B 站，或者所有人都把咱们写的文章上传到了知乎，大家就会觉得最终的受益方是知乎或者是 B 站。有没有可能内容的所有权都在我们自己，就像咱们之前聊的 NFT 一样，它通过 token 然后我们拥有它的所有权。
For example, all of us upload the video to station B, or all of us upload the articles we write to the knowledge that the ultimate beneficiary is either station B or B. The ownership of what is possible is all on our own, like the NFT we talked about before, through token and then we own it.
但 Web 3.0 实际上它的去中心化不是这个意思，它是个人虽然可以拥有任何的艺术品或者你的脑力输出的所有权，但还是要基于类似中心的网络去做。否则你可以想象那没有人开档口了，这帮赌徒去哪下注呢？
But web 3.0 does not actually mean it's decentralized. It's an individual who can own any art or your brain output, but it's based on a network of similar centers. You can imagine where the gamblers go to ?
所以它不是一个完全的去中心，或者我只能觉得这里的 decentalized 这个词是被强行安在了基于区块链技术上，它大可不需区块链技术也能做到去中心化。
So it's not exactly going to the center, or I can only think that the word decentalized here is forced into block-based technology, and it can be decentralised without block-chain technology.
这里还有一个词就是 verification ：验证，验证有很多途径去做。如果大家感兴趣，可以看看李永乐老师讲的密码学，密码学当中有很多可以验证的方式，但这种方式不一定要用区块链这么重的验证方式来做。
Here's another word: Validation: there are many ways to do it. If you're interested, you can look at Mr. Lee Young-Long's cryptography. There are many ways in which cryptography can be verified, but it doesn't have to be done with a block chain that heavy.
我给大家发过一个图，目前全球主要活跃的网站，还有社交 App 的用户排名。Facebook 有 29 亿用户，WhatsApp 还有微信、抖音都是过 10 亿用户的。
I've sent you a map of the world's most active websites and social apps. Facebook has 2.9 billion users, WhatsApp, and micro-letters and tremors over a billion users.
如果过十亿的用户完全去中心化，每个人独立是一个个体，而没有中心网站去承托，这个计算量包括 verification 就是验证，简直是一个天文数字，而且它要耗费天文般数字的能量，所以是一个得不偿失的事情。
If over a billion users are completely decentralized, and each individual is an individual without a central web site, this calculation, which includes verification, is an astronomical number, and it consumes the energy of astronomical numbers, and it is a matter of no loss.
我是觉得 Web 3.0 它的很多愿景是好的。但它真正的应用就像大卫说的，是有很多问题，有很多乱象的。
I think Web 3.0 is good for many of its visions, but it really works like David says, there's a lot of problems, there's a lot of chaos.
包括你现在如果看基于 Web 3.0 的开发，它不是去中心化，而是有一个你可以链接到加密货币的支付按钮而已。它把这个就叫做 Web 3.0，其实就是方便一群人去用数字货币继续割韭菜。
Including what you're looking at now is not going to centralize, but there's a payment button that you can link to encrypted money. It's called Web 3.0; it's actually making it easier for a group of people to continue cutting vegetables in digital currency.
但原来进入 3.0 时代的愿景，是对 2.0 的一个补充和优化。刚才蛋泥说的1.0，2.0，3.0的根本区别其实是对于几个问题的考虑。
But the original vision into the 3.0 era is a complement to and an optimisation of 2.0. The fundamental difference between 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 just stated by the egg mud is actually a few questions.
第一是数字内容到底是由谁来创造？第二是它的归属权是谁？第三就是谁来管理、控制和支配？第四是它创造的价值怎么样分配？
The first is 
无论你是内容的创造者还是内容的消耗者，大公司都能从互联网上创造大部分财富，我之前自己也创业开发过一个App ，因为我自己干过，所以我特别懂互联网公司都是怎么样让大家上瘾，怎么样从中获利的。
Whether you're the creator of content or the consumer of content, large companies can generate most of their wealth from the Internet, and I've developed an App myself before, because I've done it myself, so I know how Internet companies are addictive and how they can profit from it.
比如说你们有没有想过为什么我们手机刷新都是用下拉或者说往上这样一扫，是因为神经科学研究表明，这个动作就很容易让你产生一种不确定性和惊喜的期待。这个原理跟赌场的老虎机是一样的。
For example, have you ever wondered why our mobile phones are being cleaned up with drops or ups, because neuroscientific research has shown that this action can easily create uncertainty and surprise expectations? This is the same thing as the old span /span /span /span < /span > machine.
所以互联网很多行为，很多产品逻辑往往都是精心设计，反复测试，抓住我们的弱点让你上瘾。
So there's a lot of behavior on the Internet, and many product logics are often carefully designed, tested over and over, and capture our weaknesses makes you addictive.
这些都不在我们控制范围内，而且这些公司就会让你感觉你天天在网上冲浪，不用钱。
None of this is under our control, and these companies will make you feel like you surf online every day without money.
补充刚才 Emma 说的，像小蛋泥这样优质 Up 主，它其实是受限于 B 站或者受限于很多 Web 2.0 网站的限制。
To add what Emma just said, a good Up master like Egg Mud, is actually restricted to station B or to a lot of web 2.0 sites.
比如腾讯是不是给你发了个律师函，就因为你说了腾讯的某某，这个就是一个不好的现象，就因为我的内容，本身在讲一些我认为真实的事情，你因为你的利益好像跟中心化的利益冲突了，所以你让我禁言，把我的内容屏蔽掉，让全网找不到我，这就是一种不公平，是 Web 3.0 是可以解决这种不公平的。
For example, if the arraignment sent you a letter from a lawyer, because you said something about the arraignment, which is a bad thing, because my content, which is what I think is true, and because your interests seem to be in the middle of a conflict of interest, you let me say no, shut my content off, let the whole net find me, which is unfair, is that Web 3.0 can solve this injustice.
我本身在互联网上是基于一个去中心化的技术可以留痕的，但还是我刚才说的，这种技术有很多的实现手段，不一定需要用区块链技术，或者说不一定需要用加密电子货币或者上链这么重的技术去实现，它可以用李永乐老师最喜欢讲密码学的这些东西，完全就可以实现。
My own Internet presence is based on a decentralized technology that can leave a mark, but, as I said earlier, there are many means of achieving it, not necessarily with block chain technology, or with encrypted electronic currency or a technology as heavy as the upper chain, which can be fully realized with what Mr. Lee loves most about cryptography.
我稍微纠正一个大卫的观点，说我这种 Up 主受限于 B 站是你说的，不是我说的，我不觉得受限，
I sort of corrected a David's point, saying that I'm kind of a Up Lord limited to station B that you said, not that I said, and I don't feel constrained,
你马上就被中心压抑了。
You'll soon be crushed by the center.
我觉得 B 站对我挺好，还给我各种活动恰饭什么的。我觉得挺好，不觉得被受限。我澄清一下。
I think B's good for me, and I'm good for things. I think it's good, I don't feel constrained. I'll make it clear.
你这种人一多了，人类的科技怎么进步？
How does human technology advance when there's more than one person like you?
我觉得 Web 3.0 比较讽刺的一点是它鼓吹的去中心化。但你看现在最受益的一群人还都是中心化的组织，包括区块链包括 NFT 。我们之前也聊过，最大的受益者都是交易所或者集中的这几个炒家。
I think the irony of Web 3.0 is that it advocates decentralisation. But you see that the groups that benefit most are now central organizations, including the NFT chain. We've talked about it before, and the biggest beneficiaries are the exchanges or the conglomerates.
所以 Web 3.0 它实际鼓吹的和真正受益的，目前不是一拨人，但我们不去直接否定它，未来还是有可能，它要解决问题确实是有价值的。
So, Web 3.0, it actually advocates and really benefits, not a bunch of people at the moment, but we're not going to deny it directly, and it's still possible in the future, and it's really worth it.
我们回顾一下 Web 2.0 时代，大家也在鼓吹 Web 2.0要去中心化，UGC 内容就可以互相对话。但 Web 2.0 也没有最终达到目标，包括 Jack Dorsey 他还说要搞一个 Web 5.0，相当于 Web 2.0 加 Web 3.0。他也觉得现在 Web3.0 大部分都在被炒家搞。
We look back at the Web 2.0 era, where people are advocating that Web 2.0 is going to be centralized, and that UGC content can talk to each other. But Web 2.0 did not finally achieve its goal, including Jack Dorsey, who also said that he wanted to do a Web 5.0, equivalent to Web 2.0 plus Web 3.0. He also felt that now Web3.
所以我觉得 Web3.0 还处于非常初级的阶段，确实有很大的泡沫。
So I think Web3.0 is at a very early stage, and there's really a lot of bubbles.
我还看过一些人鼓吹 Web3，都很牵强，他们说 Web 3.0 是为了颠覆霸权主义，Web 2.0 是男权社会，到了 Web 3.0 女性就站起来了，也是我们女性的机会，怎么就扯到了女性的权利？
I've also seen people preaching about Web3 that's far-fetched, and they say that Web 3.0 is aimed at undermining hegemonicism, Web 2.0 is a male-dominated society, and when Web 3.0 women stand up and are our women's chance, why do women's rights come into play?
还有一种说 Web 3.0，我们只要去了解它，这样我们以后就不用当打工人了，就可以自己自由地去工作，自己做自己的老板。
There's another way to say Web 3.0, we just have to get to know it so that we don't have to be workers anymore, we can go to work on our own free will, and we can be our own bosses.
我是觉得这些概念都非要扯到 Web3 上，有点太过激了。最本质的还是要了解 Web3 到底解决什么问题，而不是把这些大概念都往上面扣，忽悠大家去关注这个东西。
I think it's too much to think that all of these concepts have to be connected to Web3. The essence is to understand exactly what the Web3 solves, rather than to put all of these big concepts on top of it, and to get everyone to focus on it.
这里补充一点，之前在网上看到一个留言，我觉得很有哲理，就是如果加密货币是新时代的庞氏骗局，一个人去忽悠一群人，那么 Web 3.0 实际上是一群人去吓唬另一群人。
And let me add here that I found a message on the Internet, and I think it's very philosophical that if encoded money is a ponzi scheme of the new era, one by one, then Web 3.0 is actually a group of people trying to scare another group of people.
而且刚才你们说的还有一个有意思，就是 Web 3.0 技术是人创造出来的。如果是同一批愿景的人，同一批比如生活在男权社会的人去打造一个新的技术，它是解决不了问题的。
And another interesting thing you've just said is that the Web 3.0 technology is created by people who have the same vision, the same people who live in a patriarchal society to build a new technology, it doesn't solve the problem.
要改变的是人而不是技术。
It is people, not technology, that have to change.
这里举个例子，大部分网民或者说我们都是网民，我们作为一个群体，群体的性格是一种性格，个人的性格是一种性格。那么群体的性格是盲从的，他需要一个口号，这个口号就是去中心化，或者说这个口号就是一种平民主义。
Here, for example, most netizens or we are netizens, and as a group, the personality of the group is a character, and the personality of the individual is a character. So the personality of the group is blind, and he needs a slogan, a slogan that is centralized, or a slogan that is a form of civicism.
这就跟当年法国大革命，所谓自由民主博爱是法国大革命的口号。结果罗伯斯皮尔，雅革宾派一上来，法国血流成河，这哪里体现了自由民主博爱，完全是另外一种极端。
This is like the French Revolution of that year, when the so-called "free democratic fraternity" was the slogan of the French Revolution. As a result, Robespierre and Yagbing came up with a bloodbath in France.
实际上通过这个例子是说，民众只需要一个口号，他不太关心最终的技术手段，也不太关心是不是去中心化。
Indeed, through this example, the population needs only one slogan, and he has little interest in the ultimate technical means or in decentralisation.
我给大家举例子，99%我认为网上的内容实际上在 Web 2.0 时代都是无用的，或者说它都是可以及时被消耗掉，甚至不需要被留存的。比如说抖音上的一堆小老妹在那跳，或者快手上所谓的自嗨拍一些段子。
I give you an example, 99 percent of what I think on the Internet is actually useless in the Web 2.0 era, or it can be consumed in time, not even needed to be retained. For example, a bunch of little girls on tremors are jumping there, or they're doing what they call pop-ups on their hands.
我在想这种东西如果保留在服务器里，二百年后未来的人去考古，考到了我们这个时代，他会觉得无比的失望，会觉得你们这些人在干什么？
I was thinking that if this thing were to remain on the server, that the future would go to archaeology in 200 years, that he would be disappointed in our time, and that he would think what you people were doing?
你们发表的内容怎么智商如此低下，你们的生活习惯怎么如此之落后，他会表示很失望。那这种东西为什么需要留存？为什么需要验证？为什么需要去中心化？反正都是一个大妞露着长腿在那抖，你在哪去中心化或者中心化？有什么所谓呢？
Why do you publish such low IQs, and why your habits are so backward, and he will express his disappointment. Why do you have to keep them? Why do you need to verify them? Why do you need to be centralized?
我看有的网友评论还挺逗的，就说去中心化，只是去当前的中心，总有资本会在当中占据优势，形成寡头，成为新的中心，取代原来的中心。
I think some of the comments of the online community are funny: decentralizing, just going to the current centre, where capital will always prevail, forming an oligarch, becoming a new centre, replacing the old one.
所以到底这个中心要不要去？刚才大卫说的有一点我觉得还挺赞同的，很多内容他不一定非得要去中心的，就跟我们上次聊 NFT 似的，万事皆可 NFT， 但我觉得 99% 的事情没必要用 NFT。
So, is this the center or not? I think David said a little bit, and he doesn't have to go to the center, like we talked about NFT last time, but I don't think 99 percent of things need to use NFT.
但会不会也有一些事情确实是需要去中心的。而且我看挺多我关注的大佬，也是在鼓吹 Web3，比如美团的王慧文。还有我之前关注的一哥们叫郭宇，他是 28 岁从字节退休，他们也是在这方面科普了很多 Web3 的知识。
But if there's something that really needs to go to the center, and I think there's a lot of big guys I'm concerned about, and I'm also promoting Web3 like Wang Huiwen of the United States Corps. And one of my friends I've been following is Guo Woo, who retired from the byte at 28, and they have a lot of Web3 knowledge about.
整体我感觉 Web3.0 确实在某一些方面是可以提升效率的。不一定在我们做视频或者是写文章，或者这些（地方）是完全需要去中心的。但可能在某一方面比如资金的交易，确实可以提升效率。而且给更多普通人机会，会不会有这种迹象。
As a whole, I feel that Web3.0 can actually be more efficient in a number of ways. It's not necessary that we do videos or write articles, or that these are totally needed to go to the center. But it's possible in one way or another, like financial transactions, to be more efficient.
这里补充一点，我自己能想到的什么场景最适合 Web3.0 的应用，实际上是媒体行业或者跟金融相关的媒体行业。为什么呢？
To add, what I can think of is best for Web3.0 applications, actually the media industry or the financial-related media industry. Why?
比如说我是一个大财团，我又掌握了媒体，这就有点自己又当裁判，又当运动员。因为我掌握了媒体，我可以控制媒体。那控制媒体就相当于说我控制了我整个对待大众的利益链条，这个是比较危险的。
For example, I'm a big consortium, and I'm in control of the media, and it's kind of like a judge and an athlete. Because I'm in control of the media, I can control the media. That controls the media, and it's dangerous to say that I control the whole chain of interests that I have towards the general public.
另一部分，大家知不知道之前有一个叫剑桥分析公司，就是帮助川普获取最后大选的一个（公司）。
On the other hand, it is known that there was a former Cambridge Analysis Company (CAF), one (the company) that helped Trump to win the final general election.
当然这里面有一些阴谋论，我不在此赘述，川普是如何异军突起，最后赢得美国大选的。实际上这里面也是有很多社交媒体通过数据分析在帮他，这种数据分析的方式实际上是因为他的数据是来自于一个中心的，比如说都在 Facebook 上面，那他可以通过在 Facebook 上分析这些用户日常对新闻的偏好或者他是不是一个环保主义者，一个女权主义者，一个自由主义者。我来给你推送跟川普有关的正面新闻或者负面消息，来左右美国的选举。
There are, of course, conspiracy theories, which I will not dwell on here, how Trunchor broke out and finally won the US election. In fact, there are a lot of social media helping him through data analysis, which is actually because his data comes from a center, for example, on Facebook, where he can shape America’s elections by analysing the users’ daily news preferences on Facebook or whether he is an environmentalist, a feminist, and a liberal.
所以在这两点上看，一个去中心化的网络是必要的。除此之外，我目前还没有看到更好的应用。
So in both cases, a decentralised network is necessary. Besides, I haven't seen any better applications yet.
我觉得有一个点，以前我看过一个纪录片叫做 The Social Dilemma 是奈飞拍的。
I think there's a point where I've seen a documentary called The Social Dilemma.
它找了一群谷歌脸书推特里面比较有良心的高管告诉大家互联网公司都是怎么把你们当工具去盈利的。然后里面有一句话很经典，叫做 if you are not paying for the product， then you are the product ：一切我们以为便宜的东西背后都是有代价的。只不过我们是怎么作为工具被利用让他们去盈利，我们自己是不太知道的。
It's got a bunch of more conscientious tops on Google Facebook to tell you how Internet companies use your tools to make a profit. And there's a classic saying, "if you are not paying for the project, then you are the product: everything that we think is cheap has a price. We just don't know how we're being used as a tool to make a profit.
那在 Web 3.0，我觉得有一个好的应用，就是我们也有权一起商议，一起定游戏规则。
And in Web 3.0, I think there's a good application that we also have the right to negotiate and decide the rules of the game together.
中文有句话跟刚才 Emma 说的类似，你以为你自己用的是免费产品，但其实你就是那个免费产品。
There's a word in Chinese similar to what Emma just said. You think you use free products, but you're the free product.
我想起个更搞笑的，我们不惜一切代价，你不是那个我们，你是那个代价。
I think it's funny, we're gonna do whatever it takes, you're not the one, you're the one.
我觉得 Web3.0 想要解决的问题是有价值的。但Web3 的具体解决方案不一定对。所以我觉得我们不应该一刀否决Web3.0 可能创造的价值，我们还是整体需要多关注新趋势。
I think the problem that Web3.0 wants to solve is valuable. But the specific solution to Web3 is not necessarily right. So I don't think we should take down the value that Web3.0 can create, and we need to focus more on new trends as a whole.
但与此同时，我们也不要被这些新的概念所糊弄，尤其是当自己去掏钱的时候，你要买一个虚拟货币，买个 NFT 的时候，这时候就要特别小心了。
But at the same time, let's not be fooled by these new concepts, especially when you're buying a virtual currency and buying a NFT.
Web 3.0 在中国，我认为它的市场不会特别好，因为 Web 3.0 本身背后有一层浅层的含义。这个公开说也无所谓，就是它是一种无政府主义的倡导者，既是每个人可以拥有，又是一种去中心化。这本身实际上是一种 Anarchist ，无政府主义者所倡导的世界。
Web 3.0 In China, I think its market will not be particularly good, because web 3.0 has a shallow meaning on its own. Nor does it matter, in public, that it is an anarchist, and that it can be owned and decentralized by everyone. It is a world that Anarchist, anarchist, advocates.
但实际上真正的无政府主义又不是一个起码在目前阶段，我不认为是一个应该的走向。这就好像之前数字货币时有人讨论，因为金融寡头或者央行掌握了什么，于是我们都是被割的韭菜。然后我们要去中心化，我们要做无政府主义的一种货币。
But the truth is that real anarchism is not at least at this stage, and I don’t think it is a course to follow. This is as if there had been some discussion about digital money before, because financial oligarchies or central banks had something in their hands, so we were cut off.
实际上这是不可能实现的，无政府主义，最后导致的就是谁拳头大，谁说了算。我拳头大，那就变成我就是那个主义了。你拳头大你就是那个主义，这反而是更不利于一个技术的平民化，或者说更不利于保护所有人的利益。
In fact, this is impossible, anarchism, which eventually leads to who has the fists and who has the orders. My fists are big, and I am the one. Your fists are that. They are more detrimental to the civilianization of a technology or to the protection of the interests of all.
我觉得 Web 3.0 很多的概念是非常激进的，它不是说只是优化 Web 2.0 一些没有那么好的点，它相当于像法国大革命那样，是想把一个东西完全颠覆的。
I think a lot of Web 3.0 concepts are radical, and it's not just about optimizing Web 2.0, but something that's not so good, and it's like the French Revolution, trying to turn something completely upside down.
我以前还跟我的法国朋友聊过这个问题，法国是一个特别喜欢革命，特别喜欢颠覆的国家。但他们的人民现在回头看历史，就觉得革命有点像大手术，你不是病入膏肓，别乱动手术，吃点药修修补补就好。
I have also spoken to my French friends on this issue, a country that particularly likes revolutions, especially subversion. Now that their people look back at history, they feel that revolutions are a little bit like major surgery.
在互联网世界也是这样子。Web 2.0 的很多问题，它不需要通过 Web 3.0 那么激进的手段去优化。
The same goes for the Internet world. Web 2.0 has a lot of problems, and it doesn't have to be so radical as to be optimized by Web 3.0.
是的，我看郭宇也发过一条微博，还挺有意思。
Yes, I think Guo-woo also posted a tweet. That's interesting.
他说有了 Web3 北朝鲜不用打开国门也能照样挣美元，大意也是去中心。但这个中心到底要不要去，如果中心很封闭很不好的话，可能有必要去掉，但它本身要是就挺好的。比如说咱国家政府咱不懂，咱也不敢评论。比如说像 B 站、抖音、头条这些平台，我真的是发自内心的觉得，我没有被他们所剥削，我觉得他们还是做挺好的，
He said that North Korea would make dollars without opening the country's doors, to the extent that it went to the center. But whether the center was going to go or not, if it was very closed, it might have to be removed, but it would be good if it were itself. For example, our government doesn't understand, and we don't dare to comment. For example, the platforms, like B Stations, Shakes, Headlines, I really feel like I'm not being exploited by them, and I think they're doing fine.
我要把那个诸葛亮的表情包送给你。
I'm going to give you that Gorgeous lookbag.
我确实觉得他们真正给创作者有增量的价值，我的这些东西，如果没这些平台可能不会被很多人看到。而且还有一群运营，为这些创作者服务，还搭建了帮你找侵权的工具，确实觉得他们创造了价值，比如说给我介绍商单，给人家分一些，比例也不多，我目前是满意的。但同样的事情，如果平台不好，让你很不爽，让很多创作者都不满意的话，它可能就要被去中心化。
I do think that they really add value to the creators, and that my stuff, which would not have been seen by many if not for the platforms. And there is a group of people operating, serving the creators, and setting up tools to help you find abuses, and they really feel that they have created value, for example, by introducing me to the business list, giving me a small percentage, and I'm not happy at the moment. But the same thing, if the platform is not good and makes you uncomfortable, and many creators are unhappy, it may be centralized.
与此同时还有另外一个问题，现在这种类似的平台有很多，我感觉你要真正做一个创作者，只要内容足够好，把自己擅长的事情做好了，以后真的东方不亮西方亮，如果到处都不亮的话，那可能你得反思一下自己东西有问题了。
At the same time, there is another problem: there are a lot of similar platforms now, and I feel like you're going to be a real creator, so long as it's good enough to do what you're good at, and it's going to be really bad for the East, and if it's not, then maybe you're going to have to reflect on something that's wrong with you.
所以目前我对这些中心化的平台还是非常满意的，我也没觉得它需要去中心化。但可能有一些我确实不知道的东西，以后需要去中心化，或者是一些未知的东西，它刚开始就没必要把它中心化的，这个可能是我们要重点考虑的。
So I'm still very satisfied with these centralized platforms, and I don't think it needs to be. But there may be something I don't really know, something I need to be centralized or something I don't know, and it doesn't have to be central at first, and that's probably what we're trying to think about.
我还回到我刚才说的那两点，我比较担心是一个中心化的媒体，它会完全为了自己的利益而抛弃大众福祉。
I also go back to the two points I have just made, and I am more worried about being a central media that would abandon the well-being of the general population for its own benefit.
这个实际上跟 Web 3.0 是冲突的。这个地方我还是觉得 Web 3.0 是有它用处的。比如说一些民意的反馈或者说我们对于公益事件的反馈，如果这些声音一下子就被磨灭掉了，那这个社会其实会走向另一个极端。
This actually conflicts with Web 3.0. I still think that this place is useful. For example, some feedback from public opinion or our feedback on public interest events, and if those voices are wiped out at once, this society will actually go to another extreme.
当然这是一个真理大讨论，少数人的暴政和多数人的暴政，它都是暴政。
This is, of course, a great discussion of truth, and the tyranny of a few and the tyranny of a majority are tyrannys.
如果是一个去中心化的社会，而这个去中心化的社会当中，所有的用户，他的意识形态和教育水平是某种状态。那么这一群人他所提出的观点肆意流行，是不是一种多数人的暴政呢？当然我没有办法给出一个明确的答案，我只是把这个问题留给大家，这可能是一个真理大讨论，到底应该往什么方向走？
If it's a decentralised society, and in this decentralized society, all users, his ideology and his level of education are in some state. So is it a tyranny of the majority that this group of people has been adamant about? Of course, I have no way of giving a clear answer. I just leave the question to you. This could be a big discussion of the truth, and in which direction should we go?
我自己觉得一个理想化的网络环境，或者一个技术应该去应用的方向，是我们既保留了中心化的权威，又不失去整个社会的福祉，我们要以社会福祉为先导来做。
I myself feel that an idealized network environment, or the direction in which a technology should be applied, preserves the central authority and does not lose the well-being of society as a whole, and we are guided by social well-being.
实际上你看马斯克收购推特，变成推特的老板，他肯定就是这个中心的主宰。
In fact, you saw Mask buy Twitter and became the owner of Twitter, and he must be the owner of the center.
如果他认为推特在某些问题上，或者说在某些政治议题、跟人的福祉相关太过左翼，太看不下去了，他会拨正。那这是我觉得一个比较好的，除此之外是不是马斯克要创造一个每个人都是一个独立个体的网络？这个另说。
If he thinks that Twitter is too much on some issues, or that it is too much on the left side of some political issues, related to people’s well-being, he can’t take it any more seriously. That is what I think is a better idea, but is Mask going to create a network where everyone is an independent individual?
马斯克是反对 Web 3.0 的，他反对的点是觉得这就是个大泡沫，大忽悠。他还问大家，你们谁见过 Web 3.0 吗？真正用肉眼见过的那种。
Mask is against Web 3.0. He's against it because it's a big bubble. He's asking you, have you ever seen Web 3.0? The kind you've really seen with your naked eyes.
我看美团的王慧文，他在即刻上总结的一段，我觉得还挺好。
I'm looking at King Hye Wen of the United States, and I think it's nice to have a quick summary.
他说 Web 1.0 的时候是免费获客，然后风险投资扩张。Web 2.0 要靠补贴获客，风险投资扩张。但到了 Web3.0 就是 X to Earn 或者是发那种 token 来去获客，是借 ICO 扩张。ICO 就是 Initial Coin Offering ，有点像IPO，只不过是针对区块链的虚拟货币。
He says Web 1.0 is free of charge, and then venture investment expands. Web 2.0 is based on subsidies, and venture investment expands. But on Web3.0, it's X to Earn, or token, it's ICO expansion. The ICO is Initial Coin Offering, sort of like IPO, but it's just a virtual currency for the chain of blocks.
我感觉它这种可能确实能让效率提高，而且发比较虚拟的东西，降低的比如说创业的获客成本，有点类似平民版的上市，你拿这些代币，如果把公司做好，大家一起富，现在很多车企也这么搞，搞这种 NFT ，有点像给用户发自己虚拟股权的感觉，我觉得这个是不是也是有价值的？
I feel that it can actually make things more efficient, and it's more virtual, and it lowers, for example, the acquisition cost of starting a business, it's kind of like a civilian version of the market, you take these tokens, if you do the company well, you're rich, and now many cars are doing the same thing, and it's kind of like sending your own virtual shares to users, and I think it's worth it, too.
对，这部分是有价值的，我确实认同这个点。
Yes, that part is valuable, and I do agree with that.
还有一点我想问二位，大家有没有觉得过去几年我们对于一个新概念的接触，或者说社会抛给我们的新概念越来越多，以前可能 5 到 10 年一个，现在可能一年一个，后来变成一个月一个了。
And I want to ask you, do you think that we've been getting into contact with a new concept over the past few years, or that society has been throwing more and more of it at us, maybe 5 to 10 years, now maybe one a year, then one a month.
我自己在想是为什么？我谈一下我的理解，就是因为过去每一次科技革命留下的果实很快就被瓜分完了，而且速度越来越快。
I'm thinking about it myself. I'm talking about my understanding, because the fruits of every technological revolution in the past are quickly cut off and are growing faster.
所以我们在期待一个新的科技或者产业革命来让我们把蛋糕做大。但很遗憾无论人工智能也好，区块链技术也好，都不足以像人类发明了电力或者互联网的诞生，足以一下子把一个蛋糕变大，一下子让更多的人参与到社会的分工当中，获得更体面的生活，这个都不行，而是陷入了一种无尽的内卷。
So we are looking forward to a new technology or industrial revolution to make the cake bigger. Unfortunately, whether artificial intelligence or block-chain technology is good, it is not enough to invent electricity or the birth of the Internet, to grow a cake at once, to involve more people in the division of labour, to get a more decent life.
实际上 Web 3.0 卷的是之前这些巨头的 Web 2.0 ，或者人工智能趋于一种内卷的状态，它卷的是传统产业。它不是把一个没有的东西做出来，而是把原来东西不断的内卷化，把它稍微做精了那么一点，但并没有创造更多的就业岗位。
In fact, web 3.0 is the former big Web 2.0, or artificial intelligence, which moves towards an inner circle, which is a traditional industry. It does not create something that has nothing, but it keeps it internalized, making it a little bit more sophisticated, but it does not create more jobs.
所以我们就不断需要一个概念，然后麻痹我们自己。我们会认为这个可能代表未来，先上车再说，上不了车可能就被落下了。
So we're going to need a concept, and we're going to paralyze ourselves. We're going to think it's going to be the future, get in the car first, and we're going to be left behind if we don't get in the car.
大卫说这的很有意思，为什么 Web 3.0 它火，我感觉也是跟最近互联网大厂裁员有关系。之前有一个文章很著名，虎嗅的叫《逃离大厂，拥抱 Web3》 最近很多人也被裁了，真的是被迫逃离大厂了，那大家就怎么办呢？就拥抱 Web3 呗。
David says it's interesting, why Web 3.0 it's hot, and I feel like it's related to the recent layoff of the Internet factory. There was a famous article called "Away from the big factory, hugging the Web3" that many people have been cut off recently, and they've really been forced to leave the big factory, so what do we do? Just hug the Web3.
我之前跟一个创业的哥们也聊说，为什么他要搞 NFT， 因为游戏不给版号，他发不下去了，工资要照开，公司要照开，怎么办？只能赶紧上车，上这个新概念。
I've been talking to an entrepreneurial buddy about why he's having an NFT, because the game doesn't have a number, he can't pay, he's got a paycheck, he's got a company, what to do? Just get in the car, get in the new concept.
所以这就是我刚才讲的，它是因为一种内卷化，不得不去鼓吹和拥抱一个新的概念。可能未必是它的初衷。
So that's what I'm talking about, because it's internalized and it has to promote and embrace a new concept. Maybe it's not what it was meant to be.
是的，最终我还是不完全否定 Web3，他确实是有价值的，只不过我们要特别警惕它的泡沫。最后也送给大家，郭宇写的一段话，我觉得挺有意思。
Yes, in the end, I still don't totally deny Web3, and he's really valuable, but we need to be particularly vigilant about the bubble. And finally, I think it's interesting for you, Guo-Wu.
他说他为什么要关注 Web3 呢？其实是觉得这是下一代的互联网，而且是涵盖着金融和文化领域的价值互联网，所有的关系都存在于区块链上，记在账本里，任何一个产品或者你自己都会在区块链端，记录和关系都不会消失。
Why does he want to focus on Web3? Rather, he thinks it's the next generation of the Internet, and it's a value Internet that covers the financial and cultural spheres. All relationships exist in the chain of blocks, in the book of accounts, any product or yourself at the end of the chain of blocks, and records and relationships don't disappear.
我是觉得这段话确实描绘了 Web 3.0 比较理想的蓝图。但具体真正达到这个蓝图之后，我们能干什么？这个问题也抛给大家，大家也可以想一想，到底 Web3 有哪些有价值的东西可以放在上面。
I think it does paint a better blueprint for Web 3.0. But what can we do when we actually get to it? The question comes to you, and you can think about what we're worth putting on it.
发表评论