web3 at work
Much of the focus of 'web3' can be broken down simplistically into two camps: infrastructure and culture.
Yes, they are intertwined, and they should be. My argument isn't about the separation.
It's about conflation. Clarity of which value one pursues and optimizes reduces confusion and tyranny.
Both, also, can have a spectrum, and I believe being explicit, open, and ultimately aligned on where one is on a given spectrum and the purpose also matters.
Let's start with perhaps the most common term and work through it (and ultimately this should land us at how web3 ultimately may shape how we work more than the pipes through which we work).
Decentralization.
Technical decentralization is different from technical distribution, although they are often seen as the same.
A centralized entity can have a very distributed infrastructure. This is a very potent position to be in because, as the customers and user cases continue to fan out and be distributed, being able to serve and reach those customers becomes more important.
The technical challenges of highly distributed services, however, often is best served through centralized entity. By virtue of doing all this hard work, the centralized entity then concentrates and capture the value.
Centralization of the entity which controls a distributed infrastructure is largely a benefit through coordination. When you have thousands of servers to distribute, being able to make allocation decisions based on a central view of the market, customers, and the competition is essential.
The open question, which I think will yield alot of interesting experiments, is whether such orchestration can in fact be done better in a decentralized way. "Better" may need to change, but that's what's on the table.
Because, really, a highly distributed infrastructure controlled by a responsive, and I would argue "product-led" centralized entity, is very powerful indeed.
It's worth calling out, however, that what makes a centralized entity powerful may not be what's in the best interest of individuals or society as a whole.
Decentralization as a cultural value enters the room.
As a cultural value, proponents actually position themselves against powerful centralized entities. Who knows, were these same people benefitting and thriving from running a centralized entity would probably hold a different belief. This is worth discussing further (Congruent Leadership).
Those who held (or still hold) the belief of a decentralized society would include the early Bitcoiners. Specifically, they held values that centralized control over currencies burdened society.
The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. (Satoshi Nakamoto)
The specific problem being addressed stemmed from a cultural value. That value questioned the role of central banks and the breach of that trust in the currency.
Did this desire for decentralization to address conventional currency debasement extend to decentralization in other areas? Perhaps, but it is probably not completely generalizable.
Decentralization as a cultural value, while largely generalized, should be seen in the context of the problem being solved.
For example: delivery of mail via a postal service.
Are there problems with the US Postal Service?
Yes, there are.
But are the problems so widespread and onerous that people should spend time on decentralizing it?
I'm not sure. Given the role of local couriers, Fedex, USPS, and the future of drones, I don't think we face a similar issue.
That's a cultural value, and one that I hold; but others may feel different.
The fact that I see max pain from centralized banks doesn't readily transfer to my view of centralized mail delivery.
Could one take the position that, in general, centralization is worse for society -- that centralization of power creates negative externalities? I think one could make that case across various sectors: banking, social media, media, education, IT infrastructure, search engines, operating systems.
The right technology solves the right problem.
Given that Bitcoin was using software to solve the centralized banking problem, by its very nature, had to apply decentralized technology. It needed a way to minimize the trusted relationship on a central bank in order to enable a global currency.
If the problem being solved doesn't truly need decentralization to the targeted level, then the need has been overshot: no one needs decentralization for its own sake. It must solve a problem, one typically associated with the downsides of too much trust.
Most of the discussion has been around technical decentralization, and we could work through a couple of scenarios to see what makes sense depending on the use case.
But in all cases, the implementation relies on centralized entities.
Even if what would otherwise be a large company is split up into smaller companies, that "decentralization" doesn't solve the real problem. Many of these smaller companies use a top-down centralized model. Just because the resources under their control are smaller doesn't lessen the fact that they are operating in a centralized fashion.
Due to social games, it's possible that one of these smaller companies wields far more influence than the others; in which case, it's a centralized entity.
I would argue that poorly run centralized companies damage society far more than the lack of decentralization in any given technical stack.
What this means is that web3's true potential impact may very well be on the way we work. Those systems could, in turn, be run on decentralized technology in order to solve the problems of centralized work environments.
The reason centralized work environment suck is not directly a result of them being centralized.
It's that the leaders often wield disproportional control and power and don't live in accordance to a truth-seeking or truth-telling environment. Some even abuse the term and believe they are truth-telling, but primarily a way for them to be brutal to their employees; but the guns are never pointed upon themselves.
That is not only the opposite of a truth-seeking environment; but it's the foundation of Tyranny.
A web3 workplace is hard -- largely because the Agent-Principle conflict: workers often have asymmetry in knowledge, upside, and sense of ownership from their managers.
But if we lean into the common problems and the negative externalities of badly-run workplaces, we should see that, if web3 truly wants to solve problems related to centralization, this should be a point of focus.
The problem is that such organizational dynamics are often far afield from the more familiar technical problems. And this is why I think there's a potential disconnect between the web3 rhetoric and what's actually being worked on.
Some things work squarely in the arena. DeFi, for example, could unlock value and freedom for billions of people trapped in centralized financial institutions.
The surface area is so large because finance and money course through the veins of every society.
And because finance inherits properties from the underlying rails and the instruments enabled by those rails, the impacts are huge and global.
But the second area, the next reasonable area, is the organizational dynamics, the stuff that has unfortunately been relegated to "human resources" professionals instead of being owned and embraced by leaders. It is here that economic value and social value can be unlocked in creating more productive and impactful companies through more empowered and capable people.
Although to date, most of the efforts like DAOs seem more like chaotic Discords, I suspect there's a silent revolution amongst those willing to open their eyes and press upon it.
What I do think needs to occur is for web3 leaders to embrace this way of working, passing on true ownership, sovereignty to the workers; but most are captive to a centralized mindset.