Why hasn't Web 3.0 taken off?
The answer, to me, lies in the lack of adoption of the basic platform model. When we look at what is built, it is rather disappointing.
Over the last year, we have discussed how there is a lack of services provided in Web 3.0. People want to market and discuss their favorite Web 3.0 blockchain yet the reality is we see little offered.
Here is where the concept of the platform business model enters. This is nothing new since it was used to perfection by a number of Web 2.0 companies. In fact, most of the success we see in the technological world can be attributed to this.
Web 3.0 Needs To Adopt The Platform Business Model.
When looking at what is taking place, how much has really changed?
Think about it from this perspective: what do you do on Web 3.0 applications today as compared to a few years ago?
Consider PeakD on the Hive ecosystem. What does that application offer? It allows people to blog in the blockchain, similar to Medium or Substack. Naturally, there are features of the network integrated, such as financial and social media transactions.
That said, how is this different from a few years ago? The answer is nothing really changed.
Here we are looking at the fatal flaw of Web 3.0.
The rhetoric is that new users are required. This single belief is what is hindering any realistic adoption of Web 3.0.
Digital Platforms
What is a digital platform?
In simple terms, it is infrastructure where interactions can happen.
That is the main premise. Obviously, the more users that a platform has, the greater the number of interactions. This is where the masses buy into the need for more users.
Any digital platform taking this approach is doomed to either stagnate or fail. If Facebook was the same today as 2004, Zuckerberg would be doing something different.
Therefore, when we look at the platform model, it centers around the interaction between core participants. This means the goal is to increase not only the quality of the interactions, but the quantity.
This is what derives the value.
To show it in graphical form:
What is missing is how platforms affect interactions.
The Lesson Of LinkedIn
Most of us are familiar with LinkedIn.
This is a prime example of the platform business model was applied. It was a move that generated billions of dollars in value.
What was the progression that LinkedIn went through?
It started as a place where professionals could connect with each other. This was the first premise up which the platform was built. Interactions were increased by having the service connect to outside applications such as Outlook.
If the story ended here, LinkedIn might have died. Here is where the next layer entered.
LinkedIn had a lot of data. This allowed it to start bringing recruiters and job seekers together. It was also what enabled for the monetization on the platform.
Instead of just offering connections, LinkedIn built a service. It allowed the people with jobs available to engage with those looking for employment. For this service, LinkedIn made some money.
The next move was to allow anyone on the platform to publish content. With so many professionals, there was likely to be a great deal of expertise shared. Of course, from the platform perspective, this brought publishers and readers together.
What is of paramount importance is each addition brought in new people. It also offered more interaction among those who were already on the platform.
Going back to the earlier example, Web 3.0 applications are akin to the LinkedIn allowing professionals to connect. Nothing has moved beyond that.
And people wonder why Web 3.0 is stagnant. The absence of multi-stakeholder interaction is glaring.
Responsibility
The advantage to a platform business as compared to a traditional one comes in the access to resources.
With a traditional entity, the internal assets are utilized to grow the business. This is not the case with platform businesses. Instead, the shift is from internal to ecosystem assets. The resources available are supplied by all who are engaged with the platform.
LinkedIn simply offered the service to bring recruiters and seekers together. The jobs were not provided by LinkedIn nor did they scour the classifieds to see what was available. It left this up to those who were responsible with filling vacancies.
As this occurred, the value of the entire platform grew.
With Web 3.0, we run into a different ownership mechanism. Here is where the burden shifts to those who are stakeholders, specifically those with financial stake.
The asset of the ecosystem are crucial. Again, the goal is to increase the quality and quantity of the transactions taking place. This means more than just adding additional users. In fact, without the evolution described, users will not stick around.
Therefore, we see the responsibility expanded. The platform owners are the ones responsible for this. With Web 3.0, this gets a bit convoluted.
Here we see the platform that is part of a larger ecosystem (blockchain). Tokenization means people have financial interests at different layers. Ultimately, they are the ones responsible.
It is where an ownership mindset enters.
Certainly, features on the platform are required. This is the responsibility of the development team. However, there is a lot more to network theory outside of this. Here is where the prosumers have a third leg: equity holder.
The key is to drive more interactions. The layers piled on top come from a combination of features along with innovation. Under this scenario, the features become tools.
Until this is done, Web 3.0 is going to continue to lag. It appears few have grasped the business model concept. Instead, the idea is to throw out an application and be done with it.
Hopefully people will start to realize what is at stake.
Posted Using InLeo Alpha