On the evening of October 24th, the twelfth episode of the fifth season of Guanhuo Langya List was broadcast. , former Chief Engineer of the Internet Laboratory of the Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences), the interview guest in this issue is Gu Yanxi (a researcher and practitioner in the blockchain and encrypted digital asset industry). The two masters deeply analyzed hot topics such as the launch of the new public chain Aptos and the underlying logic of Web3 applications, as well as Hong Kong's competition as an international virtual asset trading center.
Regarding the recent high-profile topic that Hong Kong is competing for the global virtual financial development center, Gu Yanxi said: "After the policy is clarified, with the support of the Hong Kong government, I believe that Hong Kong will definitely attract more talents and funds. The basic elements of innovation are complete, and I believe that Hong Kong will become a relatively leading global center for the development of virtual financial assets. In the future (Asian virtual financial market) will most likely form a central pattern of Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan.”
Regarding this topic, Shi Xingguo said: "The Web3 market in the mainland can provide more support for real business for virtual asset applications in Hong Kong, and at the same time, Hong Kong's virtual asset-related policies can give more physical businesses in the mainland the opportunity to interact with virtual assets. The combination of this mode of operation has reached a state of legal compliance at a certain level. Moreover, Hong Kong has the financial flexibility that the mainland lacks. Hong Kong can take advantage of the development talents and application advantages of the mainland while giving full play to its own advantages. On the overall basis, Hong Kong is actually no worse than Tokyo, or even Singapore, so we especially look forward to this policy can really play a role in promoting and maintaining it. The opportunities in Hong Kong are a must for current Web3 practitioners. A missed opportunity, and everyone should be very careful about it."
Regarding another recent hotspot in the encryption market - the new public chain "king of heaven" project Aptos has encountered a storm on the line, Mr. Gu Yanxi's evaluation hits the point: "I never thought Aptos was a feasible project from the beginning." "General Manager Generally speaking, Aptos is a combination of alliance nodes and non-innovative innovations. Until today, we don’t know how the product of the alliance chain will end, and Aptos itself has problems in terms of functions. As for the move language, we do development Everyone knows that there is a product that is differentiated because of its development language? This is unreliable in my opinion.” “So the positioning of the Aptos chain itself is problematic. TPS is also an unreliable thing to measure the level of the public chain." "I personally think that any project that invests a lot of money at the beginning has a very small probability of success."
In the previous interviews with Guanhuo Langya Bang, Mr. Shi Xingguo pointed out some problems with Aptos, but at that time, rational voices were easily overwhelmed by the enthusiasm of the market. Now that Aptos has gone online, Mr. Shi Xingguo once again pointed out the problems of Aptos in easy-to-understand language, and on the other hand said some "fair words" for this innovative project.
Talking about the technical flaws of Aptos, Shi Xingguo said: "The move language essentially enhances the security or performance at the application level, because it does not deal with the problems at the chain level. So it does not solve the security at the chain level. , does not solve the performance problem of the chain layer. We can imagine that the chain layer is more like a road, and the application layer is like a car running on the road. If the road itself is not wide enough, even if you increase the load capacity of the car If it is too large, it still cannot increase the business capacity of the chain." "The real bottleneck of the blockchain lies in the capacity of the block and the block capacity of the block itself."
Regarding the advantages of Aptos, Shi Xingguo said: "We must be sure that Aptos is trying to solve asset principles and key custody issues at the application level. This is indeed the pain point of Web3, and this refers to many non-encrypted industries. The core of the user's threshold for Web3.
So if they can solve this problem, coupled with the performance of thousands of TPS that BFT consensus can provide and the endorsement of star teams and capital, Aptos may not be able to form a very large ecology like Ethereum in the future, but at least in the capital There are still opportunities in the market. "
Highlights of this issue:
1. In the development of Web3, how can Hong Kong complement the development process of the Mainland?
2. How do you view the incident of Aptos going online?
3. Is the move language new public chain project worthy of the pouring of capital from so many top institutions?
4. What is the essential difference between Web3 applications and Web2 applications?
5. Is it wrong to make existing Web2 products into Web3?
6. How to solve the dilemma faced by the creator economy in Web3?
7. What problems does DAO currently face?
Brief introduction of guests in this issue:
Gu Yanxi, a researcher and practitioner in the blockchain and encrypted digital asset industry. Possesses extensive professional and management experience in well-known financial companies, enterprise software companies and Internet financial companies in China and the United States. Served in American Options Clearing Corporation and Huatai United Securities, and served as COO of several financial service companies. He has written a large number of research articles on blockchain and encrypted digital assets, and published them in domestic and foreign blockchain and technology media. The video sharing was published in the "Today's Headlines" column. Participated in the writing of "Libra, a Financial Innovation Experiment", "Understanding Libra" and "Cryptocurrency and Virtual Assets, From Jianghu to Palace". MBA from the University of Texas (Austin), master's degree from the University of Notre Dame, master's degree from the University of Science and Technology of China, and bachelor's degree from Shandong University.
The full version of the interview video of this issue can be viewed on the video account "Huoxun Finance" by clicking "Live Playback".
【Interview record】(with some deletions)
The first section: Web3
【Shi Xingguo】
The competition for the global encrypted financial center and virtual asset center is becoming more and more fierce. Within Asia, cities and regions that hope to become the global encrypted financial center and virtual asset center include but are not limited to Singapore, Tokyo, Seoul, Bangkok, etc. Now another region has joined the competition, and that is Hong Kong, China.
On October 16, Hong Kong Financial Secretary Chen Maobo published an article "Innovation and Technology Development in Hong Kong", and pointed out that it is necessary to promote Hong Kong's development into an international virtual asset center. Chen Maobo said: "The policy declaration will clearly express the government's position, and demonstrate to the global industry our vision to promote Hong Kong's development into an international virtual asset center, as well as our commitment and determination to explore financial innovation with the global asset industry."
As a world-renowned free port, with years of experience and talents in the financial industry, Hong Kong is expected to be a strong contender for the virtual asset center.
However, whether it is in terms of technical talent pool, policy development efforts, or the number of Web3 companies, Hong Kong's conditions do not seem to be perfect.
May I ask Mr. Gu, under the policy declaration, what competitive advantages can Hong Kong rely on to compete for the Web3 midfielder? In the development of Web3, what can Hong Kong do, and can it complement the development process of the Mainland?
【Gu Yanxi】
In the early years, I worked in an American options trading company, and then I was in charge of information technology in Shenzhen, until I started to contact the blockchain industry in 2016.
In my opinion, now Web3 or virtual assets are actually related to finance, and they are all blockchain applications derived from the initial Bitcoin, and then there are various innovations later, in the natural development continue.
So now different places have different emphasis on this matter. Sometimes it is called encrypted assets, and the United States likes to call it Web3, but the coverage of Web3 is wider, including all distributed bookkeeping and distributed storage. Even down to DNS domain name distribution. This set is all boiled down to Web3.
So the recent policy proposals in Hong Kong are very exciting. First of all, Hong Kong has a very good financial market foundation and the guarantee of the relevant legal system for free trade. When the policy clearly stated that virtual assets should be developed in Hong Kong, it also promoted the process of Hong Kong becoming a global virtual asset center.
From a global perspective, only from a geographical point of view, Asia and the United States are the most active places for the development of virtual assets. The United States has been non-stop. Although there will be some obstacles to both parties due to the impact of the epidemic, it is gradually returning to normal.
In terms of development trends, I think both sides are developing very fast. Frankly speaking, the development of Asia is even more advanced than that of the United States, and Hong Kong is one of the best.
In the application of blockchain technology, including payment, trading and other fields, Hong Kong was relatively leading in the early days. Hong Kong also has some registered virtual asset exchanges, which are also very leading in the world. It's just that the supervision is more stringent, which is also reflected in the United States this year, but Hong Kong is earlier.
Therefore, whether it is stable currency or the most critical application, Hong Kong has gradually fallen behind the United States, and even Singapore, a rival, has risen to become a hot spot for entrepreneurship among insiders.
Going back to the topic you just mentioned, whether Hong Kong has the conditions to become a global virtual financial development center, I think it has a very good chance. On the one hand, it has the foundation of the mainstream financial market in the past, which can provide soil for the development of virtual assets in terms of capital volume and financial-related legal system. On the other hand, it is the foundation of the encryption application I just mentioned. After the policy is clarified, with the support of the Hong Kong government, I believe that Hong Kong will definitely attract more talents and funds to enter the market. As long as the basic elements of innovation are complete, I believe that Hong Kong will become a relatively leading global market for the development of virtual financial assets. central area. I think in that regard, in terms of Asia, it is more likely than Tokyo.
We know that Singapore is now very leading. Whether it is the participation of start-up companies or mainstream financial institutions, they are all ahead of the curve and have gathered more talents.
But Japan is still relatively conservative, so it will take a long time for them to develop, so in the future (Asian virtual financial market) there is a high probability that Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan will form the center pattern.
【Shi Xingguo】
Hong Kong's attractiveness to the mainland is much higher than other Asia-Pacific regions. In essence, as you said, Hong Kong has always had a good foundation, but its enthusiasm for virtual assets has obviously been lowered by other regions in recent years.
Therefore, we especially hope that Hong Kong can lead at least in the Asia-Pacific region, preferably internationally, in the field of virtual assets, and can maintain long-term and consistent policies.
In addition to policies, Hong Kong is also planning to attract major upstream and downstream players to settle in Hong Kong, forming a relatively complete microclimate in Hong Kong.
【Gu Yanxi】
Speaking of which, is Mr. Shi optimistic about Hong Kong's competition as an encrypted financial center? As the closest region to the mainland, is Hong Kong's embrace of virtual assets an opportunity for mainland Web3 practitioners?
【Shi Xingguo】
In this regard, I think the biggest advantage is that Hong Kong and the Mainland can complement each other in many ways.
Previously, many Web3 projects in the mainland, including encrypted asset projects, were forced to develop overseas due to regulatory reasons, but they actually relied more on domestic development resources and application development capabilities.
And if it wants to operate its business in a farther region, on the one hand, there will be a problem of distance, and on the other hand, it also needs to quickly adapt to the policies, environment, and culture of other regions to avoid acclimatization.
Hong Kong itself is a region based on Chinese culture, and the communication in Chinese is also very smooth. Some time ago, there was an opinion in the entire industry, saying whether the Chinese have become Jews in Web3. It means that it is due to the Chinese The problem of people’s language communication may be seen by some investors in the West, and his competitiveness is not as high as that of overseas projects in an English-speaking environment. But it is not a problem in Hong Kong. Chinese is also a good communication medium, so it is very easy to take advantage of the advantages of the mainland Web3 industry in terms of talents and application development.
From this perspective, the Mainland’s Web3 market can provide Hong Kong’s virtual asset applications with more physical business support. At the same time, Hong Kong’s virtual asset-related policies can allow more physical businesses in the Mainland to have the opportunity to operate with virtual assets. The combination of methods can reach a legal and compliant state at a certain level.
Moreover, Hong Kong has the financial flexibility that the mainland lacks. Hong Kong can take advantage of the development talents and application advantages of the mainland while giving full play to its own advantages. In this case, on the overall basis, Hong Kong is actually no worse than Tokyo, or even Singapore, so we especially look forward to this policy can really play a role in promoting and maintaining it.
The opportunity in Hong Kong is an opportunity that Web3 practitioners should not miss, and everyone should pay special attention to it.
Another hot spot in the recent Web3 world and the encryption market should be Aptos, a new public chain project created by the former team of Meta. In the past, the encryption world has created many public chain myths, and Aptos happens to be such a team with an impeccable resume. Top institutions have participated in it The project naturally attracted everyone's attention.
But the problem is that the valuation of Aptos was as high as 2.7 billion US dollars before the launch of the ecological currency. This big bubble inflated by VC seems to have raised some doubts when it was first launched. According to a tweet by Paradigm engineer @ParadigmEng420, a cryptocurrency investment agency, although Aptos has launched the mainnet Aptos Autumn, the current TPS of Aptos is lower than that of Bitcoin, and most tokens are either pledged or ready to be sold to retail investors . In addition, Aptos claimed that the theoretical TPS was as high as 160K+ in the campaign before the launch, but after the launch, the TPS started at 4, and the subsequent display on the Explorer reached 11, which is also difficult to understand.
Under the turmoil of public opinion in the encrypted world, Aptos closed the Discord comment area, and explained that this was for security reasons, but this response was much weaker than Paradigm's questioning. Moreover, on October 19, Aptos has experienced a large number of crashes after it went online on Binance.
What does Mr. Gu think of the Aptos launch incident? What does this reflect on the state of the cryptosphere today?
【Gu Yanxi】
I never thought Aptos was a viable project from the start.
You can regard the blockchain as a product. Since it is a product, since you open this public chain, there will be infinitely many competitors. You must have your own characteristics to distinguish yourself from others. Just like Blackberry in mobile phones focuses on security, Nokia focuses on stability, and Android focuses on ecological diversity, and these are not evolved from competitors' systems, but unique and independent.
This is also what we often call product differentiation. Differentiation is not a criterion for success, but a necessary condition for success. Just like Microsoft's Windows phone could not be made, but if there is no innovation, it is even more impossible to do it.
In the field of blockchain, this scenario is that after Ethereum came out, there were infinitely many public chain projects, but so far, none of them can match Ethereum. So what are the characteristics of Aptos?
In fact, it is not a public chain itself, but an alliance chain.
Since it is an alliance chain, its own product positioning has problems, and it is not in the same category as Ethereum. If there is any difference, it should be the move language and consensus mechanism mentioned in many articles in the industry. But this is not a new thing, and similar categories have already appeared in the market.
In general, Aptos is a combination of alliance-like nodes and innovations that are not innovative. To this day, we don’t know how the product of the alliance chain will end, and Aptos itself has problems in terms of functionality. As for the move language, we all know the development, how can a product be differentiated because of its development language? This seems unreliable to me.
Moreover, the transaction volume per second you mentioned just now is not reliable. If we simply pursue the transaction volume, we can directly build a centralized system, and everyone trusts each other. Why do we need a network with so many nodes to pursue performance? ?
Aptos actually changed the past central node control into multiple node control, but this is not a free public chain like Ethereum. Although Ethereum is not absolutely free, and now it has become POS, it is still free in general too much.
Therefore, the positioning of the Aptos chain itself is problematic. It is also unreliable to simply use TPS to measure the level of the public chain after it goes online.
Another problem is the product route. The token model is the core key of the blockchain project. It is generally announced in the white paper and roadmap, and the time must be some time before the launch. However, Aptos only announced its token economic model the day before its launch. I think this is an unreliable performance. If this is a very formal product, the token model design should be announced to the public before the product comes out.
I personally think that any project that invests a lot of money at the beginning has a very small probability of success. Now there are no good entrepreneurial projects that were invested heavily at the beginning. Of course, this sentence is a bit absolute. Many Internet projects are piled up with money, but the success rate of projects that spend money is definitely not high.
【Shi Xingguo】
What Teacher Gu said just now is actually quite to the point. Our team has also analyzed it from a technical perspective, and like you, we are not optimistic about Aptos.
【Gu Yanxi】
I’m just talking about Aptos’ issues from the perspective of concept, product design positioning, and execution and operation. I don’t know much about technology. You are an expert in this area. How do you think about the questionable content of Aptos? Are these projects of the move language new public chain worthy of the pouring of capital from so many top institutions?
【Shi Xingguo】
Before Aptos went online, when there were relatively few negative information, we talked about some of its problems in a relatively neutral manner. But usually no one listens to it. Many people think that Aptos is good, and they are more willing to actively seek information that is more beneficial to Aptos. Until now, Aptos has performed poorly, and when everyone began to question it, various negative remarks came out again. Let me talk about my views on Aptos itself from a technology-neutral point of view, and I can also say a few fair words for the new project of Aptos.
Essentially, I still look at this project from a negative perspective. Let's start with the question.
Before Aptos went online, after its white paper and other publications were released, we analyzed its technical solutions. Judging from its public content, he claims that he can achieve better security, scalability and upgradeability for Web3 scenarios. But its architecture and technology do not support this.
The main feature of Aptos is its move language, and it claims that the move language can provide more atomic asset transactions, that is, it is difficult to cause asset losses due to developer mistakes during asset transactions, that is, whether it is a developer or a hacker It's even harder to get Aptos to generate errors. It can't be stopped completely, but it will be more difficult.
The second is key escrow. Aptos claims that there is a better way of escrow. As a Web3 user, you don’t have to worry about the complete loss of assets after the key is lost. You still have some ways to get your assets again. return. To some extent, this means that assets are no longer completely independently locked to one key, but may be controlled by multiple keys and in multiple ways.
The third is to use the move language for parallelism, so that this transaction can become faster.
These three items are all brought by the move language itself. In this regard, move is indeed much better than the current language. But what it essentially enhances is the security or performance at the application level, because it does not deal with issues at the chain level. So it neither solves the security of the chain layer, nor solves the performance problem of the chain layer.
Maybe non-technical people do not understand the difference between the performance of the chain layer and the performance of the application layer. We can imagine that the chain layer is more like a road, and the application layer is like a car running on the road. If the road itself is not wide enough, even if you increase the load capacity of the car, it still cannot increase the business capacity of the chain.
The parallelism mentioned by Aptos is all kinds of processing before the transaction, including pipelining, queuing, etc. These problems do not solve the performance problem of the blockchain layer. The real bottleneck of the blockchain lies in the block capacity and The block capacity of the block itself.
In fact, the blockchain with a serial architecture is powerless in these two aspects. Aptos has not solved the problem at this level, so in the future it will not have the scalability and upgradeability it claims, and naturally it will not be able to In terms of performance, it meets the needs of Web3. Because it does not improve ideas at the chain layer, it still relies on the contract virtual machine at the contract layer to solve the problem.
This way of solving the problem will make all the performance efforts of the underlying serial architecture go to waste and be useless. Unless a new technical solution is announced in the future, the effect of publicity cannot be achieved under the conditions of the existing technical solution.
This is the part that pours cold water, but at the same time, I also say a few fair words for the launch of Aptos, which is out of affirmation of new projects and attempts of innovators.
First of all, we don't need to be completely disappointed with Aptos. Aptos uses BFT consensus, which is a more neutral consensus algorithm. Compared with POW, this consensus can achieve higher TPS. If it does not show a high enough consensus speed when it goes online, it is actually that it has not shown the proper level of BTF consensus.
In this regard, the industry has given two reasons. One is that it may not reflect its performance boundary because the transaction volume is not large. For example, my current transaction volume is four per second, so the TPS you see is four per second. Another theory is that it may be because the project has just been launched, and the running-in has not been fully tuned.
The second point is indeed very common for newly launched systems. At this point, we can only be patient with new projects. Because I believe that blockchains using BFT consensus can achieve hundreds and thousands of TPS without special processing.
But the BTF consensus is just like what you said, it is a commonly used consensus in the alliance chain, and its consensus performance is greatly affected by the size of the nodes. This is why Aptos defined the node size at 21 nodes at that time, and did not dare to make the node size larger. We have also done laboratory tests. When the number of nodes does not exceed ten, the performance is not bad. Once the number of consensus nodes exceeds ten, its performance will drop sharply, and finally even drop to the point of being unusable.
If it continues to generate this kind of consensus, even if it is optimized in the future, the node size must be strictly controlled. Otherwise, at most it will reach the current level of Solana, which is only a few thousand TPS.
From this point of view, even if BFT consensus is used, if Aptos wants to achieve more than 100,000 TPS, it is also the case of replacing all the underlying chain architectures with parallel architectures. Otherwise, it is impossible to reach 100,000 TPS.
But we must be sure that Aptos tries to solve the asset principle and key custody at the application level. This is indeed the pain point of Web3. This is the core of many non-encryption industry users' barriers to Web3.
So if they can solve this problem, coupled with the performance of thousands of TPS that BFT consensus can provide and the endorsement of star teams and capital, Aptos may not be able to form a very large ecology like Ethereum in the future, but at least in the capital There are still opportunities in the market.
Strictly speaking, the Aptos project hits the pain point in people's minds, that is, the threshold of Web3 is too high now. Web3 is notoriously clunky and unintuitive for newbies. Startups are seizing the opportunity to make the user experience of Web3 application products better in order to attract more users.
And some giants in the Web2 world are also moving closer to the Web3 world. For example, Starbucks announced the launch of the Web3 platform Starbucks Odyssey some time ago, combining Starbucks' loyalty program with the NFT platform, allowing its customers to earn and purchase digital assets, thereby unlocking exclusive experiences and rewards.
The applications of the two worlds seem to be close to each other, or used at the same time. For example, the applications represented by Opensea have to adopt the Web2 foreground while using the Web3 background.
According to Mr. Gu, what is the essential difference between Web3 applications and Web2 applications? What kind of product types are most likely to become Web3 applications?
【Gu Yanxi】
I think the current Web3 is like the frictionless state in physics. This is an ideal state that can never be achieved in reality, but it can indeed be partially applied in practice.
If we look at the real definition of Web3, everything should be distributed: distributed accounting, distributed storage, DNS and distributed identity. Everything in a pure Web3 application should be distributed, but it is impossible to achieve it now.
I think the application closest to Web3 at that time was DeFi, but apart from those coins themselves, DeFi is not fully distributed, except for Bitcoin. Others, including stablecoins, are all products that cannot be centralized.
So I think there is no pure Web3 application now. Web3 is more of a concept. We usually know it, but we must not think that we are developing a Web3 application in actual application. This is simply impossible.
The real application still needs to be down-to-earth. What kind of problem do you really want to solve? Which of the various components of Web3 can be borrowed to help you provide a better solution? This is the main purpose. When we provide a solution, we need to see which part of Web3 can be used. For example, the blockchain may record a certain part or a token to motivate users to participate more, or use NFT to represent integrated assets, just like Starbucks' NFT or other collections, so that the digitization of these works Versions can be circulated better. I think this is a practical consideration.
Web3 cannot be blindly for Web3.
Of course, you just mentioned that the so-called high threshold of Web3 can indeed be solved, and this kind of solution does not necessarily require the use of Web3 distributed methods. We can completely lower the threshold based on existing technologies.
There are many applications in this area in the U.S. market, including account establishment, mnemonic word hosting, etc., which provide users with some convenient solutions combined with a centralized method. I think this will achieve the goal.
In various fields of Web3, the way of using tokens to represent real assets is the most successful, and the issuance of cryptocurrencies and stable coins is also growing rapidly, and this market can be seen. Of course, it is not currently possible to use tokens to represent securities, because there are still many restrictions in securities laws, but we have also seen that this is actually very feasible.
Web3 can allow securities to circulate 7×24 hours around the world, allowing everyone with access to the Internet to participate in transactions around the world. This is its potential. It's just that it can't be implemented under the restrictions of the current securities regulations, but the trend is already obvious.
In terms of non-homogeneous assets, we also know that there are infinitely many non-homogeneous assets in the world, and the volume is huge. Including real estate, artwork, membership cards or various securities. For example, the simplest moon cake coupon can also be made into a digital product for circulation. Of course, movie tickets, tickets, etc. can all be turned into NFT.
So NFT is a very feasible application field, and it can be linked to physical assets, so that there are more possibilities for application. I think this is why brands including the American NBA, Starbucks, and Nike have participated in it. This reflects an obvious trend, that is, the real economy has taken a fancy to the potential of NFT, so they all enter this field to try.
Of course, there are good and bad, but these are all problems that pathfinders must experience.
【Shi Xingguo】
It is true that many companies are working hard to do this, but in our opinion they have not done well, and sometimes we are also anxious for the company, which is why we do this series of interviews. We hope that more participants in the industry can understand the essential characteristics of Web3. In this industry, those who try it themselves can bring some experience and avoid detours.
【Gu Yanxi】
Yes, what is the essential difference between Web2 applications and Web3 applications in Mr. Shi's opinion? What is the product application type of Web3 in your mind?
【Shi Xingguo】
This difference can be viewed from two perspectives, one from a technical perspective and the other from a business perspective.
In fact, the biggest difference is from the business point of view, but the technical point of view is not really clear. It seems that the two technologies of Web1 and Web2 are actually complementary to each other. By now, we know that this is the Web2 era, but Web1 era websites are still functioning in this Web2 era characterized by APP and social interaction.
From the perspective of the development trend of the entire Internet, the Web1 era is a network composed of machines and information, so it can only be browsed, lacks interaction, and the business model has become similar to the media.
In the Web2 era, there is an additional element, that is, people start to participate and become the relationship between information platforms and individuals. At this time, it is equivalent to having an interactive ability, which has become a prominent feature of the entire development process of Web2.
At this time, the traffic has increased and users have also come, but the actual realization is still very tortuous. There are many traffic platforms that spend a lot of money to maintain traffic, but they cannot get the return they deserve from the traffic.
In the era of Web3, Web3 technology actually has one more abstract dimension than Web2, and this dimension is the value dimension. At the same time, Web3 users also have a characteristic, that is, they do not depend on a specific platform and have a certain degree of independence. With the blessing of these two characteristics, once there is a business need, there will soon be an independent operator with a community or community nature that gathers information, talents, and capital. This means that this technology is a technology that can generate economic closed-loop capabilities, which is the biggest difference between the Web3 and Web2 eras.
Under the influence of this technology, traffic is no longer a simple number, it may be a quantifiable and realizable asset. Users become part of the brand and the channel, not just an influencer. Equity and cultural resonance become part of the enterprise product, not just a simple component. The channel has also become a kind of cultural "campaign" of the enterprise. The camp here refers to the operation camp, rather than the simple and crude marketing as it is now. Enterprises will also have an ecology of business coexistence.
In the past, only large diversified companies like Apple were able to support the ecology, but in the Web3 era, due to the independence of users and the overlapping rights and interests between them, more and more companies will be able to go across domains. Own an ecology together. Under the nourishment of this ecology, the business model of the enterprise will become more stable, more predictable, and the returns will be more specific.
Therefore, I believe that under this trend, if any advanced economy ignores the impact of Web3 technology, it will soon lose its competitive advantage. Therefore, I am more optimistic about the early Web3 products, which are products that combine cultural attributes and online attributes. In fact, whether it is tickets or some other rights and interests that you just mentioned, such as cultural and tourism businesses have such characteristics.
The cultural and tourism business is actually a product formed by the combination of multiple industries, including travel tickets, accommodation, attractions, and even basic necessities of life. In the case of centralized operation in the past, this combined product was packaged for users by a centralized organization similar to a travel agency. Later, in the era of independent travel, everyone began to combine products by themselves.
In other words, there is a possibility of self-combination and repackaging of the rights and interests of these products under the guidance of culture. Web3 is what makes it very easy to bring these things together.
Another product that can see the role of Web3 in the early stage is the product of private domain operation. Web3 can solve the problem of insufficient stickiness of private domain traffic and allow enterprises to upgrade brand operation to ecological operation.
Now many companies are talking about ecology, but in fact, they have not been able to find a starting point or key point in terms of ecology. I watched Apple and even Xiaomi manage the ecology very well, but I just didn't know how to promote it.
In fact, it is impossible to operate an ecology by traditional marketing methods, but Web3 technology can make the ecology well established.
Of course, Web3 is still in its early days. The reason why I say that these application directions are early applications is because Web3, as the next generation of the Internet, is now in the stage of landing on the beach. Whoever can create applications that are more in line with the next era may become The new BAT (Baidu, Tencent, Ali) and FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google).
Compared with the Web2 application platform that has been formed for many years and has strong strength in technology, data, and financial resources, most Web3 applications are still in their infancy, with fewer product categories and relatively rough forms.
A typical example is the social track that has received much attention before. Web3 social applications obviously cannot obtain a large amount of user data for precise marketing like the Web2 platform, and it is difficult to achieve a logical self-consistent business model.
In addition, looking at many products on the social track, it seems that the target users are limited to encrypted users. If the encrypted world cannot absorb fresh blood from the outside world, the development of these applications that have received millions or even 100 million dollars in financing will be affected. Limited to the scale of users in the encrypted world, the successor is weak.
In addition, there is also e-commerce in the track opened by the Web2 era, but decentralized e-commerce is not even as good as social networking, and it has hardly caused any splash in the industry.
May I ask Mr. Gu, is it wrong to make existing Web2 products into Web3? what is the reason?
【Gu Yanxi】
This is clearly wrong. If there is any Web3 product trying to do distributed Twitter or distributed YouTube, I think this is a wrong positioning, which is simply not feasible, because the migration cost is too high. Moreover, the products that Web3 has seen so far have not formed a large enough cost-effective difference compared with the corresponding products of Web2, so as to attract users to abandon their existing habits and use Web3 version products. So when it comes to distributed Twitter or distributed YouTube, basically you don’t even need to look at it to know that it’s not going to work.
I think that Web3 products not only have distributed technology, but also have completely different products from existing products.
In the so-called Web2 era, communication between people is the main difference between it and Web1. Yahoo and Sohu in Web1 are actually information collection and unilateral dissemination, and individuals cannot participate. Things like WeChat, Twitter, and Facebook of Web2 allow everyone to participate together. So Web2 products are completely different from Web1 products.
The same is true for Web3. The complete distribution of Web3 requires differentiation.
First of all, I think that a truly successful Web3 product will not be an existing product category, and it cannot be instant messaging, or long and short videos, e-commerce, or even search. The explosive products of Web3 will definitely not appear in the existing product categories. Secondly, I also think that it will definitely not start from the enterprise.
So I have different opinions on how to build an ecology for enterprises that you just mentioned.
I think the popular products of Web3 must start from individual users, not from centralized organizations like Starbucks and NBA. Because Web3 is distributed, and distributed pays attention to direct transactions between individuals, and existing institutions, whether it is the NBA or Amazon, are all centralized. It is a contradiction in itself for a centralized entity to participate in the distributed ecology.
In addition, as far as enterprises and individuals are concerned, enterprises have never been the first to adopt innovations, unless the product itself is aimed at enterprises. For example, Oracle, which itself is aimed at enterprises. But any meaningful innovation usually starts with individual users, especially for Web3.
Third, I think there is another essential difference that Web3 most supports direct value exchange between individuals, that is, peer-to-peer. So if any product does not involve peer-to-peer value exchange, I think it is not a Web3 application, but a plug-in.
Of course, it will not be all distributed, but it is indeed an on-chain node based on the blockchain, allowing users to conduct direct transactions between digital assets and digital currencies.
In this sense, existing information exchanges such as Twitter or Facebook are not at all the uses and applications that Web3 should mainly involve.
I also mentioned just now that DeFi is the Web3 product in my mind. DeFi allows us to conduct asset transactions on a global scale. Gender, religion, belief, and language are neither necessary nor important. Everything is controlled by smart contracts. Of course, it is currently not related to the real economy, so DeFi can only be transferred in the currency circle.
If there is a new Web3 product that can be designed and exchanged with some actual needs, currencies, and even local laws, and it is not restricted by factors such as regional culture or gender, then it can truly bring out the characteristics of Web3.
I think this direction is the most promising direction for Web3 to create innovative and unprecedentedly differentiated products, and it is only in this field that it is possible to establish a global ecosystem.
【Shi Xingguo】
I very much agree with your point of view, including what you mentioned earlier that Web3 is more of a point-to-point transaction between individuals. It is more difficult for enterprises to become Web3 initiators than individuals. I actually agree with this point very much.
In the previous episodes, I have been emphasizing the possible role of enterprises in Web3. In fact, it is more about finding a way to combine the real economy and Web3 in the Chinese context.
In essence, Web3 does not require the participation of enterprises, but if we look at the inclusion of entities into the Web3 business as an indicator, once this indicator is realized, it means that Web3 is no longer a self-promotion or idling in the encryption field, but a change. It has become a model that really supports demand.
In this case, I think Web3 has entered a healthy development channel. So I particularly agree with your statement, but how much role enterprises can play and how much participation they have in it determines whether Web3 can support such an indicator of the real economy. It depends on which enterprises are more suitable to participate and take advantage of Some features of Web3.
Web3 and Web2 may not be clearly separated at the technical level, but the difference in business is very large. The relationship between the two is not a simple linear evolution, so direct migration is impossible.
The difference in business logic and business participants leads to just adding Web3 technical elements to Web2 products, such as adding blockchain, wallet, and NFT. It will sink to the bottom when thrown into the water.
So we can also think of this situation as when Web2 just started. At that time, many Internet products added social attributes, and even Alipay began to make social attempts, but most of these attempts were unsuccessful in the end.
In addition, when e-commerce was just developing rapidly in the early days, many companies opened up e-commerce modules on their websites, hoping to promote this kind of sales of their products, but none of them succeeded.
The business model of Web3 has strong community culture and private domain attributes. Users' spontaneous identification and individuality are crucial things here, and the sense of participation and acquisition is the soul of Web3's own application.
On the contrary, decentralization, wallet assets, etc. are relatively minor things, so just transforming Web2 applications into something with encryption attributes cannot solve the sense of participation, personalization, or cultural resonance. problem, which means that it cannot solve the business problems that Web3 should solve.
So Web3 solves problems that Web2 cannot solve or is difficult to solve, such as the problem of private domain traffic. Web3 is like a crowdfunding of attention. But in terms of development, I think Web3 will not make Web2 disappear, but enterprises should take Web3 seriously as a new business.
A simple transformation with Web2 cannot produce the soul of Web3.
In the past, when many things were relatively scarce, companies only needed to work hard. In the past, products should be of high quality, low price and large quantity, but now, unless you are a foundry that does not operate a brand, the company must realize empathy with users in products or brands, and use this method to create an ecology that allows Your product has a bonding effect among the crowd.
Although it sounds like what Apple and Xiaomi are doing now, this is definitely not something that can be achieved by simply modifying the existing APP or website. You must have a matching plan, bind corresponding rights and interests, and provide corresponding rewards and rewards. Interactive, and the whole process is organized by your team of volunteers, not by you.
Without this understanding, enterprise plans to move to Web3 will surely come to naught.
So we especially hope that all enterprises can open their minds.
What about in the Web3 era? Can you move towards the next BAT?
Next, let’s talk about the token economy. So far, all successful Web3 applications are products of the token economic model, including but not limited to the blue-chip leader of NFT, Boring Ape, and the phenomenon-level product StepN of GameFi.
However, under the supervision of the financial system's supervisory force "stability overwhelms everything", the development of the token economy in China is struggling. As early as 2019, many exchanges officially canceled domestic users, and StepN also carried out withdrawal actions in the first half of this year. It is basically difficult for Chinese Web3 entrepreneurs to get through this road.
May I ask Mr. Gu, is the token economic model necessary for web3 applications? Is it possible to design a token economic model within the scope of compliance?
【Gu Yanxi】
First of all, I think that the token economic model is necessary in most scenarios of Web3.
Because Web3 is mainly to mobilize the enthusiasm of all kinds of users to participate in the construction of the ecology and participate in the ecology. You need to allow all participants to obtain the benefits brought by the ecological development. Token is a very good solution to the income problem. .
But whether the income must be distributed through tokens is not necessarily the case.
And our goal is to allow all participants to obtain the benefits of ecological development. There are also opinions on how to design specific tokens and whether they are compliant.
No matter where we are, we will be subject to local financial supervision. Even in the United States, the SEC (US Securities Regulatory Commission) believes that except for Bitcoin, other tokens are suspected of being securitized. Many tokens are likely to be sued by the SEC and forced to terminate their issuance, and all tokens are trying to find ways to circumvent the SEC's supervision. In the United States, the risks of cryptocurrencies are quite high, not to mention in other countries or regions with stricter regulations, we may not even be able to issue coins.
But I think that even under such circumstances, it is still very correct to share the benefits with the participants involved in the ecological construction.
The mainstream financial institutions use stocks to obtain benefits from ecological development. Users just buy products, enjoy products or directly invest.
In addition to the method of direct investment and continuous holding of stocks, it is difficult for users to share the development dividends with the ecology. Under the existing stock system, early users only get the use benefits obtained by purchasing the products at that time, but he does not get Assets or value gains brought about by ecological development.
Just like what products we bought for 100 yuan in the early days of Microsoft, these products have long since lost most of their meaning in the development of technology, and can only become a tool for us to study the history of technological development, even in the eyes of most people. of waste.
Web3 provides an opportunity, so that these early users can also obtain the benefits of supporting ecological development by purchasing products. In fact, the main essence of Web3 is to reward early users.
The difference between early users and late users is basically equivalent to the difference between investors and operators. So in terms of incentive mechanism, I think we can actually optimize the existing stock mechanism and apply it in the Web3 field.
In short, in the current situation, even under the premise of compliance, it is possible to set up a token economic model to motivate early users to help the ecological development, whether it is VC, or the management team, or users also good.
And if we are talking about a real Web3 ecology, in fact, only the early operators or maintainers and the later maintainers and users are needed. Like Bitcoin, there is no VC. Satoshi Nakamoto has been holding bitcoin since he invented it and mined it. Later, when bitcoin rose, he became very rich.
Miners have continued to reap benefits in this regard, and even users, the more they participated in buying Bitcoin early, the richer they are now.
I think this is the ideal state of Web3. Of course, this ideal state must be combined with reality. For example, many entrepreneurial teams need financial support, so VCs are still needed to play a role.
Having said that, the key to whether the ecology can develop is not the token model. The token model only plays an incentive role. The key is whether the application can really meet the needs at the business level, which is the so-called product and market demand. Match, the token model is just a booster in it.
Section Two: Creator Economy
【Shi Xingguo】
I think the Microsoft example you just mentioned is particularly accurate. A similar situation is also reflected in a price reduction promotion of Tesla. At that time, Tesla had just increased its production capacity, and then announced a price cut, from about $50,000 to $30,000 per car.
At that time, many early consumers were dissatisfied, especially those who bought cars shortly before the price cut. The value of the car bought yesterday was depreciated today, which caused a relatively large conflict with Tesla. This is actually the fact that during the development of the enterprise, due to the large ecology, some benefits have not been enjoyed by everyone, and early users feel that they have suffered losses.
So if, as you said, there is a good mechanism to deal with this problem, not only will the early users not feel lost because of the price cut, but they may be happier because the ecology has developed better, so I may also Get some benefits, at least my early investment will become more meaningful and worthwhile.
It is also early users who have reached an agreement with operators and investors in terms of interests, rather than a zero-sum game.
This form is currently developing in terms of the creator economy, and the creator economy seems to be more vigorous in the Web3 era, because Web3 has regained the ownership of content for creators.
Some unpleasant encounters in the former Web2 creator economic ecology gave birth to today’s Web3 creator economy, such as accounts or works being inexplicably frozen by the platform, terms unilaterally updated by the platform, data deleted or used by the platform quietly, and income Irrefutably deducted by the platform and so on.
Therefore, content creators called for the advent of the Web3 era, but while Web3 creators regained the ownership of the content, they also lost the benefits provided by the platform.
In addition, in the Web2 world, as a creator, the business model is to generate traffic and then realize it through advertising. Just now we mentioned that Mirror provides various monetization methods, but these are also based on having a certain number of users. The current Web3 content creation not only relies heavily on the dissemination of Web2 social media, but also has the problem of being unable to be discovered by readers when the content is larger than Web2. After all, the Web2 platform has portals and algorithm recommendation mechanisms.
May I ask Mr. Gu, how do you think the creator economy faces difficulties in Web3?
【Gu Yanxi】
I personally think that the most likely application of Web3 is the creator economy. Although Web2 economies such as Starbucks, NBA, Nike, etc. are using NFT to sell products, which can indeed make profits in a short period of time based on the curiosity of users, it will certainly not form a large ecology. And the creator economy happens to be where Web3 comes in.
As I mentioned just now, one of the basic characteristics of the success of Web3 applications is the direct communication between individuals. During the Web2 period, we relied on information to communicate, and Web3 can realize value communication, and also through distributed bookkeeping. and currencies to realize global transactions of digital assets.
Under these conditions, the creator economy can realize direct transactions between creators and consumers around the world. It is very likely that killer applications will be born in this field in the future.
Having said that, even so, the application of the creator economy cannot be purely distributed, and there must be a centralized platform, but developers need to pay attention to the design so that the centralized platform can only play the role of operation and maintenance and cannot dominate ecology. If it dominates the ecology, it will be no different from the current e-commerce platform. If you make any dissatisfied remarks, it is not uncommon for the platform to directly deduct money from your account.
The role of this platform for the ecology can only be auxiliary. For example, the role of a miner in maintaining ecological development like Bitcoin can obtain the benefits of ecological development, but it must not dominate the development of the ecology.
The third section: DAO
【Shi Xingguo】
DAO organizations have risen rapidly and become popular in recent years, but if we really look at the development of DAO, it is not difficult for us to see some problems, the most prominent of which may be that the number of DAO tools is even more than that of DAO itself.
Just like the gold rush in San Francisco, it is not the miners who are really guaranteed to generate income, but the people who sell tools such as picks and shovels. But this still hasn't allowed the DAO ecosystem to flourish, yet the DAO is still struggling at the most basic level of governance. New DAOs are being created and old ones are disappearing. Some DAOs can still leave a chaotic community to inherit the "legacy" of DAOs, such as the dissolution of PandaDAO, the largest DAO organization in DeWork, and of course more unknown DAOs disappeared, but they did not stir up waves in the encryption world.
May I ask Mr. Gu what problems DAO is currently facing? Do today's DAOs need any multi-tools? What DAO tools do we really need?
【Gu Yanxi】
Frankly speaking, I think it is because DAO is too advanced. If DAO can be applied, it will be in some very small segments, and it is impossible to apply it to all walks of life or regions.
So I think the industry’s attitude towards DAO is a bit too enthusiastic, but then again, the idea of DAO is also correct, because the current Web2 has shown the strong restrictions on individuals by the platform, what we need is to break through the restrictions on individuals Limitation allows the individual to develop fully.
For example, the PayPal I mentioned just now, and Twitter, which even the President of the United States can mute, the current centralized platform has developed to the point where it is difficult to control. DAO also naturally emerged in this context and became a hot topic.
But in its current form, which is fully democratic voting decision-making, I doubt how far this approach can go.
DAO is actually a form of organization. Among the existing mainstream organizational forms are listed companies, privatized companies, and organizational membership companies. Among them, the form of membership companies is particularly similar to DAO, which relies on members of the organization to vote together to make decisions For example, MEMX (Members Exchange), a newly emerging exchange in the United States, is composed of some non-exchange mainstream financial institutions, trying to break through the monopoly of mainstream exchange groups on the trading industry in the form of an industry alliance.
The premise of establishing this organization is that they have their own customers and products, and they can also conduct transactions by themselves, uniformly serve member institutions, and earn business profits from their services.
This also forms a very good differentiated competition with mainstream exchange groups. I think that the organizational form of DAO does not necessarily allow all participants to participate in investment and decision-making. In some scenarios, only a part of members or core members are required. This approach is feasible and can really be implemented.
That is to say, the ideal of DAO can be implemented in such a form in some small-scale industries, and the emergence of token economy can also represent the rights and interests of DAO members, one of the main rights and interests is voting rights.
From the perspective of Web3 or blockchain, we can further enlarge the existing membership organization to make it more powerful and have a wider range of affairs, instead of doing it completely from a utopian distributed organization, but from It is more feasible to make changes in the existing organization and let the organizational form evolve gradually.
【Shi Xingguo】
I very much agree with your point of view. DAO does have many limitations, and many things are too idealistic. So now many DAO attempts have encountered certain failures, which I think is quite normal. Because in many cases, some businesses may not be suitable to be solved by the DAO method, and this method will encounter even greater detours.
【Gu Yanxi】
Yes, it 's like when you have a hammer and you see the world full of nails, you always want to hammer it. For example, the dissolution of Panda just mentioned is representative. Strictly speaking, its dissolution is not a technical issue, but an organizational management issue.
The DAO team must have corresponding goals and ideals at the beginning of its establishment, which is very good, but as the organization deepens, due to the entry of a large amount of funds, the members spend a lot of time on how to use the funds, how to further increase the value of the funds, etc. A lot of energy has also caused great disagreement and estrangement in the community on this part of the decision-making. Even in the end, its dissolution was largely due to disagreements, as well as the influence of the bear market and other aspects.
But in general, today’s DAO is not formed by the evolution of a common culture or a resonant community, but because the project itself will be able to obtain some financing due to the DAO trend, which forms various DAOs. This way of formation leads to the fact that members participating in the community do not necessarily have the purpose of furthering the development of the community itself, but with a strong speculative purpose.
Speculation is very common in the field of encryption, and it is not bad, but to a certain extent, it is likely to become poison for many early projects, including projects like DAO.
Therefore, the dissolution of Panda DAO may be inevitable again, and it is quite representative. You can pay attention to its development process.
Regarding the limitations faced by the current DAO, what better solution does Mr. Shi think?
【Shi Xingguo】
Skipping governance and organizational issues, in fact, in terms of technical issues, although there are many tools, the threshold for DAO is still too high. In terms of governance, it is also particularly rough and primitive, because so far, the complexity of smart contracts itself is limited, so it is difficult to achieve a particularly fine governance.
In addition, the threshold for development and configuration is extremely high, and when it comes to governance, the gas fee is also quite high. This is a problem that the Web3 world needs to solve. From the perspective of DAO, in addition to the continuous trial and error of the model, the threshold of development and maintenance has to be solved with time. Of course, with the entry of more developers, this problem will be improved.
For example, there is a set of tools in our ecology. The goal of this set of tools is to allow people to build and maintain a DAO in the future, which is no more difficult than building a blog now. At present, the functions of our set of tools are relatively simple, and they can be put into use better in the future.
The governance of DAO itself will generate a large transaction volume, which is actually the same order of magnitude as the application transaction volume of Web3, and at least two orders of magnitude larger than the current digital currency transaction volume.
Because the transaction frequency of DAO is very high, but in fact the value of each transaction is not high. For example, DAO needs to vote for decision-making. It is completely impossible for each member of DAO to spend a few dollars as the price of voting. OK.
So if a good parallel blockchain is supported, DAO will not have a larger scale or more complex business in the future.
There is also a very important complicating factor in the dissolution of the DAO, such as recruiting, onboarding and managing the team.
Since DAOs are new, finding and vetting suitable people to work in them can be difficult. A DAO without a relevant organization must also figure out how to resolve the legal complexity of establishing a connection with a talent when there is no counterparty to sign an employment agreement with the talent or to guarantee that the talent will not leak confidential information.
The DAO's team found that conveying institutional knowledge to new members was cumbersome. Once onboarded, the DAO core team must determine how to manage people, which can be difficult in a flat structure and even more difficult when a group is trying to portray itself as highly decentralized.
The organizational form of DAO and the difficulty of governance limit the scale of DAO. Just like a development team like ours, it will not work if there are fewer people, and it will not work if there are more people.
May I ask Mr. Gu, do you think DAO is naturally contrary to the term scale?
【Gu Yanxi】
Not to mention the scale of the current DAO, the possibility of it being able to be implemented is very small.
That is to say, before the model is fully clarified and there are few successful cases, it would be too much to talk about the scale. As I just said, the application of DAO can only be applied in some very small segments
Without the support of technology and blockchain protocols, it would be difficult to make DAO bigger by artificial means. After all, the content involved is still relatively complicated, and it is difficult to reach an agreement only through DAO.
【Shi Xingguo】
At this point, I think DAO is not impossible, because DAO actually has many existing learning reference objects, although it is not called DAO now.
For example, in the computer field, there are many successful open source communities that have existed for decades and have released many excellent products. There are thousands of participants. Except that they did not use today's DAO tools to organize, they seem to be Both are like a DAO. This kind of community is a typical example.
Another example is Wikipedia, which is also a good example of relying on the community to operate independently. It does have a centralized foundation to handle things, but in essence, its content production is completely generated by the community itself, and basically independent of outside investment.
Therefore, there is no reason why we cannot do better with a reference method that allows DAO projects to provide participants with clearer forms of participation and rewards.
In addition, DAO itself is also one of many forms of autonomous organization, that is, decentralized self-organization, but I don't think DAO must always maintain the nature of decentralization.
Using the example you just mentioned, a company can be a private company or a listed public company, but when the operator thinks it is necessary, it can be acquired again and become a privatized company again.
Although DAO is essentially an autonomous organization, we should also allow it to become a traditional organization to a certain extent. For example, become a company or a foundation. Conversely, a traditional organization can also try to transform into a DAO. Because different organizations naturally have different strengths and limitations.
The development of the project itself should take the interests of the participants and the continuity of the project itself as the main reference, and there is no need to stick too much to the original decentralized essence. I think it is unnecessary from the beginning to the end.
While cryptocurrencies solve the payment problem by default, DAOs face many hurdles in managing and automating payments, often resulting in delayed payments. Sometimes, DAOs are paid in their native token, which is very volatile. We've also heard that contributors often find it difficult for them to earn in crypto as a reliable source of income. Additionally, many active contributors found it difficult to get the DAO project to cover their expenses, such as SaaS expenses, travel reimbursement, etc. All of this leads to a poor payment experience for DAO-contributors.
In other words, DAO is far inferior to today's mature corporate system, whether it is in terms of the convenience and immediacy of payment or the economic returns that DAO can provide to contributors.
We have to admit that as an emerging organization, DAO has just started, just like the Silicon Valley garage or the early encryption world, and there are relatively few jobs and opportunities that can provide lucrative salaries. Everyone is "generating electricity for love".
May I ask Mr. Gu, in what way can this dilemma of DAO be resolved? When might it become a reality in the future?
【Gu Yanxi】
I think it is still in some subdivisions. Just now you mentioned that those Wikipedia or open source software communities are likely to be the first to implement DAO. Specifically, how far they can develop in the future and how many business scopes they can support. It really remains to be seen.
【Shi Xingguo】
Do you think DAO may become a relatively mainstream organizational form in the Web3 track?
【Gu Yanxi】
I don't think it's likely, at least not in the near future.
This is not directly related to distributed technology, but if you need to use democratic voting to solve some issues of common concern, you still have to look at specific subdivisions and need specific analysis of specific industries.
【Shi Xingguo】
learn. I don't think and pay much attention to this aspect, so I won't be too arbitrary. My view is slightly more optimistic than yours.
Because at least in the Web3 era, users’ individuality and personality are more fully reflected, so many spontaneously formed collaborative models will naturally form DAO. Of course, it will definitely not become a form that can completely dominate Web3 as you said, but it will It will be a very novel and distinctive form, which can become an effective supplement for many services in Web3.
【Gu Yanxi】
It is also very possible that the Web3 era is an era of innovation. Frankly speaking, my personal thinking is also personal, and it is also a burden. On the contrary, it is not easy to see innovations that others can easily see.
Just like the original shared housing hotel brand LBNB and Uber, the earlier Alibaba, and even Bitcoin, were not recognized by the market at the beginning. But later, through market testing and recognition, with the injection of resources, these projects will grow bigger and bigger, and become mainstream.
Personal cognition will inevitably have limitations. The key is that practice is the standard for testing truth. Because it is indeed very early, even if we have not seen many successful cases that can really show that DAO is feasible, we can still take a tolerant and supportive attitude towards it.