Cloud Hosting

Web3 has the potential to disrupt pretty much everything we know about life online and who controls it. But as with any technology thats rapidly evolving, it can be hard to separate the facts from the wishful thinking. So if youve struggled to get your head around the web3 hype or wonder why web3 matters this article is for you.

5 Reasons Why You Should Care About Web3

Adobe Stock

First up, what is web 3.0?

Web3 or web 3.0 is basically the next iteration of the Internet. It follows on from the previous two evolutionary phases of the Internet, i.e., web1 (or web 1.0), the birth of the internet we all know and love, and then web2 (aka web 2.0), the more interactive, user-generated, social media-driven web that exploded over the last decade.

Web3 represents the next big evolutionary leap forward of the Internet a leap thats driven by blockchain, NFTs, and cryptocurrency. But perhaps the biggest defining feature of web3 is decentralization, which brings us to our first reason why you should care about web3.

In the decentralized web3 era, internet users will have more control

Thats the idea, anyway. Because web3 represents a decentralized internet, as opposed to todays highly centralized Internet. If you think about it, most of the sites we use today are owned by major corporations (like Meta, Google, and Amazon) and to some extent are controlled by government regulations. Power is centralized.

Web1 and web2 evolved this way because the infrastructure required to build and run the Internet is expensive, and someone has to pay for it! These powerful corporations earn back their investment (and, lets be honest, a lot more on top) either by charging us to use their services or by harvesting and using (often selling) our extremely valuable personal data. Web3 and the decentralized internet promise to change all this, or at least ensure that centralization isn't the only way forward. How is this possible? Because web3 platforms are powered largely by token-based economics and blockchain-based infrastructures where, typically, no one central authority is in charge, and users can transact and interact without third-party intervention.

A good example of the decentralized web comes from Secretum, a messaging app with the aim of becoming the web3 version of WhatsApp or WeChat. Secretum users can connect without an email address or phone number, which promotes user privacy, and there's a built-in trading function, allowing users to trade crypto and NFTs securely without the oversight of banks or other facilitators.

Web3 just might kick off a major power shift

Dwelling on this vision of a decentralized internet, where control is taken away from intermediaries and authorities and placed in the hands of users, its clear this represents a major power shift. With web3, we could freely access the Internet without forking over our personal information, have full ownership of our data, and not be dependent on centralized authorities who don't always have our best interests at heart. It's a rejection of how things are currently done. Its a rallying cry of sorts.

The question is, will web3 actually end up reducing the huge amount of control that todays power players have and make the Internet more democratic? Certainly, big tech giants, central banks, and governments have a vested interest in retaining some oversight and of course, we all want the Internet to be a safe place and not the new Wild West.

Ultimately, I suspect organizations like Meta will evolve, and new organizations will arise to facilitate web3 interactions for example, having a digital wallet thats managed and protected by a third-party platform. Thats still some form of centralization, obviously. But I do believe web3 will offer us the chance to create a more equitable internet, where users have more choice and greater autonomy.

Web3 will underpin much of the metaverse

Web3 technologies are inherently linked with the development of the metaverse since they will allow us to interact and transact with others in metaverse environments. For example, NFTs and blockchain both web3 technologies will allow us to own and trade digital assets in the metaverse, whether its digital art, digital land, or digital sneakers. Cryptocurrency will most likely form the foundations of economic and monetary systems in the metaverse. And many of the virtual worlds that will ultimately form part of the metaverse (places like the Decentraland virtual world) are built on blockchain.

Basically, the metaverse cant reach its full potential without web3 technologies. So when you hear people like me getting excited about the metaverse, know that web3 is a vital part of that future.

NFTs will have real-world uses

Weve all seen the crazy price swings and headlines around the sale of NFTs. But if we think of NFTs as digital tokens that represent ownership of assets, its clear that NFTs can deliver much more value than just trading jpegs of cartoon animals.

In fact, many experts believe that utility NFTs will be used to represent ownership of real-world items and assets, such as tickets to events. Imagine the Burning Man festival decided to sell lifetime tickets, and you bought one of those tickets. Having it as an NFT is much easier and more secure than keeping a paper copy or an email confirmation in an account that you no longer use in 20 years time.

Blockchain will transform business operations

So far, we havent touched on the business impact of web3, but I believe this next evolution of the Internet will have a significant impact on how businesses operate. The most transformative web3 technology for businesses is undoubtedly blockchain. Indeed, Im already seeing blockchain being adopted in a wide range of industries.

As an example, blockchain is ideally suited to the supply chain, where it can be used to facilitate the transfer of goods from one party to another and allow organizations to track the status of goods in real-time. In this way, blockchain increases the security and transparency of the supply chain and generally makes the whole process much more efficient. Which is why Walmart and its Food Safety Collaboration Center in Beijing use blockchain to track farm origination details, batch numbers, factory and processing data, expiration dates, storage temperature, and shipping details for pork.

Any industry that needs to track supplies, materials, and products can benefit from blockchain and thats just one example of how blockchain will revolutionize the world of business. So, if you think web3 has no relevance to your organization, think again.

To stay on top of the latest on new and emerging business and tech trends, make sure to subscribe to my newsletter, follow me on Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube, and check out my books, Future Skills: The 20 Skills and Competencies Everyone Needs to Succeed in a Digital World and Future Internet: How the Metaverse, Web 3.0, and Blockchain Will Transform Business and Society.

Bernard Marr is an internationally best-selling author, popular keynote speaker, futurist, and a strategic business & technology advisor to governments and companies. He helps organisations improve their business performance, use data more intelligently, and understand the implications of new technologies such as artificial intelligence, big data, blockchains, and the Internet of Things. Why dont you connect with Bernard on Twitter (@bernardmarr), LinkedIn (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/bernardmarr) or instagram (bernard.marr)?

See the rest here:

5 Reasons Why You Should Care About Web3 - Forbes

This article was first published onDr. Craig Wrights blog, and we republished with permission from the author. ReadPart 1,Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 7.

Lessig (2000) promoted an early concept adopted by cypherpunk computer coders and anarchists: Code is law. Such a mentality has been propagated with regard to electronic cash and blockchain systems despite having been discredited by Timothy Wu (2003), who demonstrated the fallacies of such an approach. Most critically, human actors write and maintain all code and algorithms. Yet, the question around decentralized systems has been promoted by Silicon Valley corporations and those seeking to ignore the responsibilities that come with the creation of an engineering product.

More recently, authors have revived such a discredited view of algorithms, and integrated it into the narrative around blockchain technology, moving from code is law to a concept of law is code (De Filippi & Hassan, 2018). Zwitter and Hazenberg (2020) extend the argument by promoting unregistered corporations as a new structure, ignoring previous online attempts to create digital corporations acting outside of existing corporate rules. The development of web IPOs in the 1990s demonstrates a previous synergistic attempt at creating a system outside of governance rules. The lack of understanding in relation to partnership law leads to the flawed concept of a DAO as a system without formal governance. By assuming that automated structures remove the holder of the key or token from liability for the actions of the algorithm, the authors have failed to understand the workings of corporate law and contracts.

Equally, Wylie (2018) argues that blockchain-based systems come under an absence of law. Yet, the author fails to point out UNCITRAL provisions for electronic contracting, released in 1996 (Habibzadeh, 2014). The promotion of code as law-based systems represents a reaction to legal systems by technically aware individuals who embrace a distaste for the existing political system and seek socialist or anarchist alternatives. The issue with such an approach is that the existing legal system and framework already encompass the problems that are said to have no solution. Consequently, the argument for decentralization falls flat.

Annotated Bibliography

De Filippi, P., & Hassan, S. (2018).Blockchain Technology as a Regulatory Technology: From Code is Law to Law is Code(arXiv:1801.02507). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1801.02507

The authors argue that integrating blockchain systems with algorithmic control through what is termed a smart contract enables the shifting nature of code that has the effect of law associated with the new concept of law being developed as code. While such an argument extends the crypto-anarchist concept of code as law presented by Lessig (2000), the subjects of law and contractual control remain misunderstood. The argument presented by the authors creates a false dichotomy of issues by misrepresenting contract law and the nature of contracting. Most critically, systems including electronic data interchange (EDI) have already existed and allowed the direct machine-to-machine exchange of information for decades (Dearing, 1990).

Most critically, the formation of a contracts requires the meeting of the minds between human parties. Machines fail to integrate rational agency, and the actions of the machine are merely the consequence of human actors who have set a predetermined algorithm, along the path of actions taken by human programmers. The argument that automation is put into a decision-making process fails to integrate the programmers actions in defining the algorithm. Code development integrates the decision-making process, and arguing that the machine has been programmed does not mitigate liability or responsibility for programmed actions.

Lastly, the notion of integrating legal rules into code demonstrates the complete lack of awareness expressed by the authors regarding the nature and function of courts. The automation of decisions is outside the realm of human agency, and courts have a rational process of choosing outcomes based on equity and justice. Neither aspects of human interaction can be programmed. While it is possible to automate many processes, doing so does not mitigate the requirements of developers to act responsibly or take responsibility for the code they produce.

Wylie, B. (2018). Governance Vacuums and How Code is Becoming Law.Waterloo, ON: Centre for International Governance Innovation. https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/Data%20Series%20Special%20Report.pdf#page=94

The argument presented in this special report again overlooks existing data contracting rules formulated under the UNCITRAL provisions and global implementation of the guidelines on electronic contracting by the United Nations (Habibzadeh, 2014). Similarly, the paper erroneously assumes that the common law is not resilient or flexible enough to integrate new technologies. Even such an approach would be a stretch as the concept of smart contracts merely integrates a new form of EDI and digital value exchange.

The authors assume existing laws and legislation concerning information technology-based systems do not apply. Nevertheless, such an approach is in error. Information technology law has been applied in a variety of cases across the world for over four decades (Lloyd, 2020). So, while many believe it is new or not covered within existing legal frameworks, a plenitude of existing legal systems has already been developed with extensive case law in various areas. In addition, peer-to-peer filesharing cases throughout the 1990s and 2000s demonstrated how the legal system could act even when distributed systems are involved.

Zwitter, A., & Hazenberg, J. (2020). Decentralized Network Governance: Blockchain Technology and the Future of Regulation.Frontiers in Blockchain,3, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2020.00012

Zwitter and Hazenberg (2020) argue that the creation of blockchain-based technologies that allow for the automation of certain validation and consensus tasks provides an opportunity to integrate a variety of new governance norms that would enable Lessigs code is law system and structure (Lessig, 2000). Yet, the argument fails for the same reason that Lessigs original argument failed when Wu (2003) demonstrated the flawed aspects of arguing that algorithms acted independently of human action or that a multitude of distributed actors would lead to a scenario where code could form an independent system outside of law.

The paper presents a series of existing legal structures that are portrayed as new or novel. In arguing that governance models may be structured based on voting rights in tokens, the authors merely present an unregistered corporation that will not have the normal corporate protections associated with shareholders. The authors present a form of partnership without understanding the responsibilities and duties that come with such a structure. As such, the paper merely presents existing legal systems, concluding that they have created something new when, in fact, they have removed the hard-won protection for shareholders that comes with corporate rights.

The promotion of decentralization in the paper takes on the look and feel of a theological argument that ignores real-world conditions and structures that contradict the belief structure of the author. In many ways, the paper presents a delusional concept of decentralization based on a straw man: that legal structures dont already cover partnership agreements, or that a group of individuals acting outside a formalized corporate structure will not be seen as a partnership under the law.

Additional References

De Filippi, P., & Hassan, S. (2018).Blockchain Technology as a Regulatory Technology: From Code is Law to Law is Code(arXiv:1801.02507). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1801.02507Dearing, B. (1990). The strategic benefits of EDI.The Journal of Business Strategy,11(1), 4.Habibzadeh, T. (2014).Developing and Modernizing Iranian Law in the Context of Electronic Contracts by a Comparative Study of UNCITRAL Rules, English Law, American Law, EU Law and Iranian Law. The University of Manchester (United Kingdom).Lessig, L. (2000). Code is law.Harvard Magazine,1, 2000.Lloyd, I. (2020).Information Technology Law. Oxford University Press.Wu, T. (2003). When Code Isnt Law.Virginia Law Review,89(4), 679752.Wylie, B. (2018). Governance Vacuums and How Code is Becoming Law.Waterloo, ON: Centre for International Governance Innovation, 8690.Zwitter, A., & Hazenberg, J. (2020). Decentralized Network Governance: Blockchain Technology and the Future of Regulation. Frontiers in Blockchain,3, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2020.00012

This article was lightly edited for clarity purposes.

Watch: Kurt Wuckert Jr. answers your Bitcoin and blockchain questions in this CG Weekly Livestream episode

New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeeksBitcoin for Beginnerssection, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoinas originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamotoand blockchain.

Go here to see the original:

Papers associated with Bitcoin and related topics in law: Part VIII - CoinGeek

Hall at Consensus 2023

Consensus 2023

Coindesk celebrated 10 years of its longest-running and most influential event that brings together all sides of crypto, blockchain and Web3. As one of the most significant global summits focused on Web3 and blockchain technology, the event is often compared to the Super Bowl and World Cup in the blockchain field, and the Cannes Film Festival in the Web3 space. A common theme throughout this years conference centered around regulations driving the fate of the industry.

While Web3 organizations convened at this years Consensus conference, an increase in representation from mainstream American corporate brands such as PepsiCoPEP, Golden State Warriors, Anheuser-Busch and Warner Music Group complemented the optimism of Web 3 enthusiasts, rallying to showcase latest improvements to their protocols or partnerships. Seemingly, their optimism in the industry continues despite the bleak regulatory outlook or lack thereof. Taken from 5 Consensus 2023 takeaways, Ben Schiller, head of Consensus Magazine asserts Additionally, what's evident is that the lack of policymaking and predictable enforcement in D.C. is a wider threat to the U.S. than we might think. Its a concern for American competitiveness at large and, at this point, its really unforgivable. Europe and much of Asia now have relatively clear frameworks and in what is supposedly a major hub for blockchain industry, we still dont. That affects an increasingly large number of people and organizations.

How exactly will organizations benefit from Web 3.0 despite a lack of policy-making in the US?

The term "Web 3.0" refers to the next generation of the internet, (an improvement of Web 2.0) which is expected to be a more decentralized, user-centric, and secure web experience. While the idea of a new and improved internet sounds promising, without clear cut regulations, some experts argue that the current vision of Web 3.0 is missing the mark.

One of the main goals of Web 3.0 is to create a more decentralized internet that is not controlled by a handful of tech giants. However, the current approach to decentralization is focused on using blockchain technology, which has its own set of limitations. For example, the energy consumption required to maintain a blockchain network is immense, and it is not a sustainable solution for the long term.

Additionally, the current focus on blockchain-based solutions is not addressing the root cause of centralization on the internet, which is the concentration of data in the hands of a few large companies. Decentralization alone will not solve the problem if the underlying data is still controlled by a handful of players.

Another issue with the Web 3.0 vision is the emphasis on user-centricity. While this is an admirable goal, it is not enough to create a truly user-centric internet. User-centricity should not only focus on creating a better user experience but also on empowering users to control their data and privacy.

The current approach to Web 3.0 is also missing the mark when it comes to security. While the idea of a more secure internet is appealing, the current focus on blockchain technology as a solution is not addressing the many other security vulnerabilities that exist on the internet. For example, phishing attacks, social engineering, and malware are still major security threats that need to be addressed.

Moreover, the current focus on Web 3.0 is primarily on the technical aspects of the internet, such as blockchain technology and decentralized applications. However, the social and economic implications of a new and improved internet are not being fully considered, which provides opportunity for regulators and policy makers to adequately address. For example, how will the new internet impact job markets, income inequality, and social structures?

In conclusion, while the idea of Web 3.0 is exciting, and weve just celebrated a decade old industry event, the current approach to achieving it still require a few kinks to be ironed out. A more comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes of centralization, empowers users, considers the social and economic implications, and addresses all security threats is needed. Only then can we create a truly decentralized, user-centric, and secure internet.

Named as one of the top women, leaving their mark on the MedTech field in health IT, by Beckers Hospital Review, Chrissa McFarlaneis the Founder and CEO of Patientory, Inc., headquartered in Atlanta. McFarlane founded Patientory in December 2015 after seeing the need in the market for more personalized and secure consumer-driven health information management solutions.

Read the original post:

Is Web 3.0 Missing The Mark? - Forbes

In Silicon Valley, Tim Draper is venture capital royalty. A third-generation investor, Draper was an early backer of some of the most pivotal technology to come out of California, from Hotmail to Skype. In recent years, his focus has been on Bitcoin and the broader ethos of decentralization, famously paying $19 million for 30,000 Bitcoin in 2014 that had been seized in the U.S. government takedown of dark web marketplace Silk Road.

While some of his bets have not paid offincluding an investment in Theranos and repeated predictions that Bitcoin would reach $250,000he is continuing to throw his chips in with the pioneer cryptocurrency. In an interview with Fortune, Draper said he expects Bitcoin to soar in value amid economic uncertainty in the U.S.

If the bear gets that angry to where the banks start falling apart, that actually means that Bitcoin will have a bull market, he told Fortune. Itll be a raging bull in the middle of the bear.

Bitcoin is currently sitting at just under $29,000. Its up nearly 75% since the beginning of 2023 amid the failures of major U.S. banks Signature, Silicon Valley Bank, and First Republic.

Drapers support of Bitcoin does not extend to the entire crypto ecosystem. While he backed pioneering projects like the blockchain Tezos, he said hes wary of companies that are too centralized. Draper said he twice turned down an investment opportunity in Sam Bankman-Frieds now-failed exchange FTX, arguing that there was no utility for its proprietary token, FTT, except for speculation.

As FTX rose in popularity in 2021 and 2022, Draper said he thought he had missed something, but was vindicated in November when the company collapsed in spectacular fashion.

I just thought it was a race to the bottom, Draper said about CeFi, or centralized finance, companies like FTX.

His concern now is with crypto regulation, as lawmakers debate legislation to establish guardrails for the industry and agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission target firms with enforcement actions. Draper said that when he speaks with startups in the space, they ask him about regulation, which had never before been the case.

If theyre regulating by enforcement, theyre just slapping people down and fining them and suing them, he told Fortune. I dont want to waste years of my life in court and trying to avoid some problem.

Draper, who has advocated for breaking up California into six states, said that the only solution is to have a new political party in charge.

This is as controlling as the U.S. government has ever been, he said. Theyre ruining business, theyre killing the golden goose, and Silicon Valley is breaking up because of it.

See the original post here:

Billionaire investor Tim Draper predicts Bitcoin bull market, says controlling government is killing the golden goose of Silicon Valley - Fortune

Despite a difficult winter for cryptocurrencies, c-stores can still profit from this growing segment through crypto ATMs or branded cryptocurrencies.

By Richard Crone | May 2, 2023

Technological innovation, decentralization, censorship resistance and growing adoption rates contribute to the continued prominence of cryptocurrencies. As a result, convenience stores have the opportunity to integrate cryptocurrencies into their operations, attracting a broader customer base and offering additional services.

Some potential opportunities for c-stores include accepting cryptocurrency payments, installing crypto ATMs and kiosks, offering international remittance services, creating loyalty and rewards programs, adopting cryptocurrency-compatible point-of-sale (POS) systems and exploring blockchain technology for supply chain management.

Cryptocurrencies are built on blockchain technology, which is constantly evolving. Blockchain has numerous potential applications beyond cryptocurrencies, such as supply chain management, voting systems and decentralized finance. The underlying technology and its ongoing advancements maintain the relevance of cryptocurrencies and the broader blockchain ecosystem.

One of the core tenets of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin is decentralization. This aspect makes them resistant to censorship and control by any single entity, such as governments or financial institutions.

As a result, cryptocurrencies can serve as an alternative financial system for people in countries with unstable currencies or limited access to banking services.

Cryptocurrencies offer a way to transfer value across borders quickly and with relatively low fees. This makes them an attractive option for remittances and digital payments, especially in areas where traditional banking services are expensive or inaccessible.

Some cryptocurrencies offer enhanced privacy and security features that are not available through traditional financial systems. These features can be particularly appealing to individuals concerned about data privacy and the security of their financial transactions.

Branded cryptocurrencies, or custom tokens, can provide new opportunities for c-stores to engage customers, build loyalty and create new revenue streams similar to private-label prepaid debit and gift card programs.

C-stores can use branded cryptocurrencies for customer loyalty and rewards programs, gamification, customer feedback incentives, cross-promotions and alternative payment options. However, factors such as regulatory compliance, technological infrastructure, customer adoption, volatility and security must be considered before adoption.

Crypto ATMs and kiosks can offer significant benefits for c-stores, such as additional revenue streams, increased foot traffic, competitive advantage, catering to the unbanked or underbanked and enhancing brand image. However, challenges include regulatory compliance, security, initial investment and maintenance costs, and customer education and support.

Despite the potential impact of closures or interruptions in services like the Silvergate Exchange Network (SEN) and Signature Banks cryptocurrency network Signet, the integration of cryptocurrency services remains a promising opportunity for c-stores. Coin ATM Radar data highlights the substantial earning potential of cryptocurrency ATMs compared to traditional ATMs, with a single-purpose crypto machine generating up to $36,000 in top-line revenue per unit.

However, the closure of these services could lead to reduced access to banking services, liquidity constraints, increased operational costs, slower transaction times, increased regulatory scrutiny and market consolidation. C-stores must stay informed and adapt to the changing landscape to capitalize on the opportunities presented by cryptocurrencies.

See the article here:

Can Convenience Stores Still Cash in on Crypto? - Convenience Store Decisions