Interesting way to look at Web3. I especially liked the idea that each version is just filling gaps left by the previous one. Makes me wonder what Web4 would actually fix.
The Internet Hasn't Changed
5 Comments
@[Emder] Yes, sir! There are endless possibilities because our desires are insatiable. We have unlimited wants, which is a good thing because it keeps driving more innovation to keep coming. Thank you for the comment🙏
Do well to check out what we are building at: https://binnadev.com. You can register to the upcoming cohort this month. I will be waiting for a feedback from you on my inbox.
Please log in to add a comment.
Interesting framing. I like treating Web1, Web2, and Web3 as iterations of the same underlying system rather than completely separate technological eras.
I do wonder if "read-write-own" lets Web3 off a little too easily, though.
What exactly do we mean by "own"?
Having a private key gives me control over something, but that isn't necessarily the same as owning my identity, my data, or even what a token represents. Likewise, distributing data doesn't necessarily eliminate intermediaries. We may simply relocate the trust boundary to wallets, RPC providers, exchanges, front ends, DNS, indexing services, and other infrastructure.
There's another side to that question too: was Web2 itself actually centralized?
The Web remained remarkably decentralized. Anyone could operate a server, register a domain, publish a site, expose a feed, or communicate using federated protocols. What became centralized were many of the economically dominant applications we chose to build and use on top of it.
That makes me wonder whether "own" is better understood as Web3's architectural ambition rather than an accomplished property. If economics, convenience, network effects, and human behavior helped centralize activity on top of a decentralized Web once, what prevents the same forces from doing it again?
Maybe each generation of the Internet doesn't eliminate gatekeepers so much as give us another opportunity to choose different ones.
@[Ken W. Alger]
The web generally has a fundamental goal: connection.
Why do we need this connection? Because we want to connect, communicate, and share resources.
From Web1 to Web3 and even into the future, we have seen many iterations of the web. If you remember the analogy of drinking water, no matter the vessel we use, the aim is still to drink water. Water is the goal. The different vessels simply demonstrate different ways of achieving that goal, with each one sometimes highlighting a particular possibility more than the others.
This does not mean that the possibility did not exist before. It did. It is just that each iteration reveals or highlights more possibilities. Those possibilities existed from Day 1, when the Internet came into existence.
I can use electricity as an example. Even before we discovered electricity, it existed. Since its discovery, there have been many iterations and advancements in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity, but the electricity itself was already there.
Now, to your question.
With Web1, people had access to create, write, and publish, but that access was limited. As innovations came along and the web scaled, more people gained access to these capabilities.
The same applies to decentralization. The web was already decentralized in some ways. For example, I can build an e-shop(e-commerce) and implement an escrow system that is governed by code. This demonstrates a small part of how decentralization can work, but it is still limited.
Web3 highlighted this possibility further through technologies such as blockchains, which use append only data structures. You can write to the blockchain, but you cannot simply erase or alter what has already been recorded. We still implement something like an escrow system, but now the user can have greater trust in the code because the rules and records are designed to be resistant to modification.
Also, using a public blockchain explorer gives users transparency into transactions. You can see what happened, when it happened, and the addresses involved. This level of transparency was not generally possible in the same way with traditional Web2 systems.
The decentralization existed as a possibility. Web3 simply highlighted it more and showed us more ways it could be implemented.
Then we have ownership in Web3.
Having the private key to an account gives you control over that account. Creating a wallet is relatively easy, and your ability to control and move that account is based on cryptography. You can also import or export your wallet and interact with different applications and ecosystems without having to create a completely new identity each time.
You cannot do this with most Web2 platforms.
Can you move your LinkedIn account to X/Twitter and carry everything you own with you, such as your connections, comments, likes, and messages?
Web3 technology has opened up possibilities for doing something closer to this, where ownership and identity can be more portable across different applications and ecosystems.
In summary, there are endless possibilities, but we are still solving the same fundamental problem: connection with fewer barriers.
Hope this provides a satisfactory answer to your question. Do ask other questions.
@[BinnaDev] Thanks for the detailed response. I think we're actually fairly close on the larger point, particularly that these capabilities didn't suddenly appear with Web2 or Web3. Each iteration made certain possibilities more practical, accessible, or economically viable.
Where I'd still push a little is the distinction between control, portability, and ownership.
The wallet example gives me cryptographic control of an identity that multiple applications can choose to recognize, which is genuinely different from my LinkedIn account. But I'm not sure that automatically means I "own" everything associated with that identity. An application can still determine what state exists, what that state means, and whether externally represented state is recognized at all.
I'd make a similar distinction around blockchain transparency. An append-only public ledger can give us very strong evidence that a transaction occurred and that the historical record hasn't simply been rewritten. That's valuable. But it doesn't necessarily tell us whether the transaction was legitimate, whether the smart contract expressed the intended policy, or whether the actor controlling an address had the appropriate authority.
So perhaps we're mostly differing on how much meaning we pack into the word "own." I absolutely agree that Web3 gives us architectural mechanisms for moving control and trust away from individual platform operators. I'm just reluctant to make the jump from "greater user control and portability" to "ownership" without asking ownership of exactly what, guaranteed by whom, and recognized by which systems.
And perhaps that supports your larger thesis: the fundamental goal of connection hasn't changed. What keeps changing is the architecture through which we negotiate control, trust, identity, and participation in that connection.
Please log in to add a comment.
Please log in to comment on this post.
More Posts
- © 2026 Coder Legion
- Feedback / Bug
- Privacy
- About Us
- Contacts
- You Tube
- Tiktok
- Premium Subscription
- Terms of Service
- Early Builders
When I'm shipping on Ethereum or L2 network, my process is anchored in three core values:
- Reliability: Every solution is built to last and tested thoroughly because the foundation of innovation is a system that works exactly as intended.
- Thoughtfulness: I make intentional, user-focused decisions to ensure that the architecture is clear and the ethical implications are grounded.
- Excellence: I maintain high standards through continuous improvement, focusing on gas optimization and precision to create meaningful impact.
I believe in choosing clarity over complexity. My goal is to bridge the gap between rigorous engineering and ethical design to build a decentralized future we can all trust.
Let's build something you can trust with clarity, purpose, and excellence. Show less
More From BinnaDev
Related Jobs
- Bilingual Store Associate (Spanish)Sherwin-Williams · Full time · Hagerstown, MD
- Software Engineer, Test & Infrastructure II (Bilingual Spanish)Vail Systems · Full time · Springfield, IL
- Full Stack Java/Go Developer (Bilingual English/Spanish)Dev Technology · Full time · Arlington, VA
Commenters (This Week)
Contribute meaningful comments to climb the leaderboard and earn badges!