rewrite reimagine next generation web #38
Conversation
SmartLayer
requested review from
nicktaras,
JamesSmartCell,
zhangzhongnan928 and
bobjiang
| @@ -97,13 +97,15 @@ In essence, the trajectory of Web 2.0 innovation is not solely constrained by th | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Reimagining Web 3.0: Beyond the Internet of Value | |||
|
|
|||
| The prevailing vision for Web 3.0 is characterised as an 'Internet of Value' - a platform where value, in its various forms, is distributed more equitably among users and creators, breaking away from the monopolistic tendencies of the Web 2.0 era. This centralisation of value, in this view, is seen as the root cause of many of the issues plaguing the current web ecosystem, from stifled innovation to privacy concerns. | |||
| The dominant vision of Web 3.0 heralds it as an 'Internet of Value'—a digital ecosystem where decentralized financial systems ensure equitable value distribution, challenging the monopolistic centralisation of Web 2.0. This concentration of value is often cited as the principal catalyst for the myriad challenges afflicting the current web ecosystem. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The argument that the centralization of value is a consequence rather than a cause is well-articulated. However, it would benefit from providing specific examples or evidence to support this claim. E.g add a quote/reference for proving the argument.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi don't use ai without providing ai with the full paper;)
|
|
||
| Rather than viewing the centralisation of value as the *cause* of the Web's current evolutionary obstacles, we argue that it is, in fact, a *consequence* of the Web's evolution. The transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 was not primarily driven by a pursuit of centralised value, but by the demand for more dynamic, application-oriented experiences. Therefore, it is not logical to assume that the transition to Web 3.0 should be defined by a reversal of this trend. | ||
| Rather than viewing the centralisation of value as the *cause* of the Web's current evolutionary obstacles, we argue that it is, in fact, a *consequence* of the Web's evolution. The historical shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 was not predominantly driven by a collective quest for value but was propelled by the demand for more interactive, application-centric experiences. Consequently, it is reductive to presume that the evolution to Web 3.0 should be predicated on a reversal of this trajectory. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The historical shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 is briefly mentioned, but delving deeper into how this transition occurred and its implications would strengthen the argument. Providing examples of specific platforms or technologies that drove this shift could add depth.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi don't use ai without providing ai with the full paper, the transation from web1.0 to web 2.0 took several pages earlier and you didn't give ai a chance to read it before asking it to comment. t's not good use of my time to comment on this.
| Furthermore, the characterization of Web 3.0 as an 'Internet of Value' may be more reflective of a countercultural movement against the early elitism Web 2.0, spurred by social and economic disparities, rather than an evolutionary process of the Web. Not everyone who transitioned from prior-generation Web to Web 2.0 was pursuing value, and not everyone who migrates from Web 2.0 to the next-generation web will necessarily be pursuing value either. While the value investing community is growing, it still represents a small section of web users and is likely to remain so in the future. | ||
| The portrayal of Web 3.0 as an 'Internet of Value' is more aptly interpreted as a countercultural movement against the perceived elitism of Web 2.0, spurred by socio-economic disparity, rather than an evolutionary process of the Web. It's not Web has "come of age" to be a finance application, but a coming-of-age user base increasingly sought financial autonomy from a platform that has historically been perceived as a panacea. | ||
|
|
||
| Not everyone who transitioned from prior-generation Web to Web 2.0 was pursuing value, and not everyone who migrates from Web 2.0 to the next-generation web will necessarily be pursuing value either. While the value investing community is growing, it still represents a small section of web users and is likely to remain so in the future. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Acknowledging and addressing potential counterarguments or critiques to the proposed vision of the 'Next-Generation Web' would enhance the text's robustness. This could involve foreseeing objections to the shift from 'Internet of Value' to 'Next-Generation Web' and providing compelling responses.
| @@ -97,13 +97,15 @@ In essence, the trajectory of Web 2.0 innovation is not solely constrained by th | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Reimagining Web 3.0: Beyond the Internet of Value | |||
|
|
|||
| The prevailing vision for Web 3.0 is characterised as an 'Internet of Value' - a platform where value, in its various forms, is distributed more equitably among users and creators, breaking away from the monopolistic tendencies of the Web 2.0 era. This centralisation of value, in this view, is seen as the root cause of many of the issues plaguing the current web ecosystem, from stifled innovation to privacy concerns. | |||
| The dominant vision of Web 3.0 heralds it as an 'Internet of Value'—a digital ecosystem where decentralized financial systems ensure equitable value distribution, challenging the monopolistic centralisation of Web 2.0. This concentration of value is often cited as the principal catalyst for the myriad challenges afflicting the current web ecosystem. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please see a small suggested change, adding the term "User-centric" to the dominant vision of Web3.0.
The dominant vision of Web 3.0 heralds it as a 'User-centric Internet of Value' — a digital ecosystem where decentralized financial systems ensure equitable value distribution, challenging the monopolistic centralisation of Web 2.0. This concentration of value is often cited as the principal catalyst for the myriad challenges afflicting the current web ecosystem.
| Furthermore, the characterization of Web 3.0 as an 'Internet of Value' may be more reflective of a countercultural movement against the early elitism Web 2.0, spurred by social and economic disparities, rather than an evolutionary process of the Web. Not everyone who transitioned from prior-generation Web to Web 2.0 was pursuing value, and not everyone who migrates from Web 2.0 to the next-generation web will necessarily be pursuing value either. While the value investing community is growing, it still represents a small section of web users and is likely to remain so in the future. | ||
| The portrayal of Web 3.0 as an 'Internet of Value' is more aptly interpreted as a countercultural movement against the perceived elitism of Web 2.0, spurred by socio-economic disparity, rather than an evolutionary process of the Web. It's not Web has "come of age" to be a finance application, but a coming-of-age user base increasingly sought financial autonomy from a platform that has historically been perceived as a panacea. | ||
|
|
||
| Not everyone who transitioned from prior-generation Web to Web 2.0 was pursuing value, and not everyone who migrates from Web 2.0 to the next-generation web will necessarily be pursuing value either. While the value investing community is growing, it still represents a small section of web users and is likely to remain so in the future. | ||
|
|
||
| Instead of defining Web 3.0 as an 'Internet of Value,' this paper proposes an alternative vision: the 'Next-Generation Web.' This Next-Generation Web shifts focus from the distribution of value to the decentralisation of Trust Anchors, attacking the root cause of centralisation while continuing to progress in the demand-driven direction that has been driving the Web 1.0 to 2.0 upgrade. This perspective views the Next-Generation Web as a platform that fosters widespread innovation and enables more profound integrations by allowing anyone to develop and maintain Trust Anchors. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion;
Instead of defining Web 3.0 as an 'User-centric Internet of Value,' this paper proposes an alternative vision: the 'User-centric Next-Generation Web.'
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why? user-centric is a first-use here, if we do go that way we will need to redress it earlier.
Can you check if this version is better than the one already in the paper?