many possibilities blog

Monday, December 8, 2025

Web3: scam or not?

Overview of Web3: Empirical Data and Comprehensive Summary

Below, I will provide a detailed explanation of what Web3 is, followed by a comprehensive summary of empirical data, research, and studies related to the concept. I have gathered information from credible sources and academic discussions to ensure accuracy and depth.

What is Web3?

Web3, often referred to as the "decentralized web," is a vision for the future of the internet that aims to shift control from centralized entities (like tech giants such as Google, Meta, and Amazon) to users through decentralized technologies. It is built on blockchain technology, smart contracts, and peer-to-peer networks, emphasizing user ownership, privacy, and trustless systems. Unlike Web1 (static websites of the 1990s) and Web2 (the current era of social media and centralized platforms), Web3 seeks to create a more equitable digital ecosystem where users have control over their data, digital assets, and online interactions.

Key features of Web3 include:

Decentralization: Data and services are distributed across networks rather than stored on central servers.
Blockchain Technology: Underpins Web3 by providing transparent, immutable ledgers for transactions and data.
Cryptocurrencies and Tokens: Enable decentralized finance (DeFi) and incentivize participation in Web3 ecosystems.
Smart Contracts: Self-executing agreements on the blockchain that automate processes without intermediaries.
User Ownership: Users own their data and digital assets (e.g., NFTs or cryptocurrencies) through cryptographic wallets.

Web3 is often associated with applications like decentralized finance (DeFi), non-fungible tokens (NFTs), decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), and metaverse platforms. However, it remains a concept in development, with ongoing debates about its feasibility, scalability, and societal impact.

Empirical Data and Research on Web3

Below is a comprehensive summary of empirical information, studies, and data regarding Web3. I have categorized the information into key areas: adoption and usage, economic impact, technological challenges, societal implications, and regulatory perspectives. Since Web3 is a relatively new and evolving field, much of the research is exploratory, with limited long-term empirical studies. However, I have cited available data from reputable sources and academic papers.

1. Adoption and Usage of Web3 Technologies

Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Adoption: According to a 2023 report by Chainalysis, global cryptocurrency adoption has grown significantly, with over 420 million users worldwide as of mid-2023. While not all cryptocurrency users engage with Web3 applications, the growth in blockchain-based systems is a key indicator of Web3's potential reach. The report highlights that regions like Southeast Asia and Africa are leading in adoption due to economic instability and the need for alternative financial systems.
Decentralized Finance (DeFi): A study by the World Economic Forum (2022) notes that DeFi protocols, a core component of Web3, had a total value locked (TVL) of over $40 billion as of late 2022, down from a peak of $180 billion in 2021 due to market volatility. DeFi platforms allow users to lend, borrow, and trade without traditional financial intermediaries, aligning with Web3's decentralization ethos.
NFT Market Growth: Non-fungible tokens, often seen as a Web3 innovation for digital ownership, saw explosive growth in 2021. According to NonFungible.com, the NFT market recorded over $17 billion in trading volume in 2021. However, a 2023 report by DappRadar indicates a significant decline in NFT trading volume (down 70% from its peak), reflecting market saturation and skepticism about long-term value.
User Engagement: A 2022 survey by ConsenSys found that only 24% of internet users globally are familiar with Web3 concepts, and even fewer (8%) actively use Web3 applications. This suggests a significant awareness and adoption gap, despite the hype surrounding Web3.

2. Economic Impact

Investment in Web3 Startups: According to Crunchbase, venture capital investments in Web3 and blockchain startups reached $30 billion in 2021, though this dropped to approximately $10 billion in 2022 amid a broader crypto market downturn. This indicates strong initial investor interest but also highlights volatility and risk.
Job Creation: A 2023 report by LinkedIn identified "blockchain developer" and "Web3 strategist" as among the fastest-growing job categories, with a 76% year-over-year increase in job postings related to Web3 technologies. This suggests that Web3 is creating new economic opportunities, even if at a niche level.
Economic Inequality Concerns: Research by Oxfam (2022) warns that while Web3 promises financial inclusion, the concentration of wealth in cryptocurrencies (e.g., 0.01% of Bitcoin holders own 27% of the supply, per a 2021 NBER study) could exacerbate inequality if access to Web3 tools remains uneven.

3. Technological Challenges

Scalability Issues: A 2021 study published in the IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management highlights that current blockchain networks like Ethereum (a foundation for many Web3 apps) struggle with scalability. Ethereum processes only 15-30 transactions per second (TPS), compared to Visa's 24,000 TPS. Layer-2 solutions like Polygon and Optimism aim to address this, but widespread adoption is still pending.
Energy Consumption: A 2022 paper in Nature Communications estimated that Bitcoin mining alone consumes 0.1% of global electricity, raising concerns about the environmental impact of Web3 technologies. Ethereum's shift to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) in 2022 reduced its energy use by over 99%, but other blockchains still rely on energy-intensive mechanisms.
Security Risks: A report by CertiK (2023) documented over $2 billion in losses due to Web3 hacks and scams in 2022, including exploits in smart contracts and DeFi protocols. This underscores the vulnerability of decentralized systems, which lack centralized oversight to mitigate risks.

4. Societal Implications

Digital Ownership and Empowerment: A 2022 study by the University of Cambridge argues that Web3 could empower users by giving them control over their data via decentralized identities (DIDs). However, the study also notes that technical complexity and the need for private key management could exclude non-tech-savvy users.
Community Governance via DAOs: Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are a Web3 innovation for community-led decision-making. A 2023 analysis by DeepDAO found over 10,000 active DAOs managing $16 billion in assets. However, participation is often low, with many DAOs controlled by a small group of token holders, per a study in Blockchain: Research and Applications (2022).
Privacy Concerns: While Web3 emphasizes privacy through decentralization, a 2021 paper in ACM Computing Surveys notes that blockchain transactions are pseudonymous, not anonymous. Advanced analytics can often de-anonymize users, posing risks to privacy.

5. Regulatory and Legal Perspectives

Global Regulatory Uncertainty: A 2023 report by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) highlights that Web3 technologies operate in a regulatory gray area in most jurisdictions. Governments are concerned about money laundering, tax evasion, and consumer protection. For instance, the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, set to be implemented in 2024, aims to standardize rules for Web3 assets.
Policy Debates: A 2022 policy brief by the Brookings Institution argues that while Web3 could reduce reliance on Big Tech, it also introduces new risks, such as unregulated financial products in DeFi. The brief calls for a balanced approach to regulation that fosters innovation without compromising safety.
Legal Challenges: Case studies, such as the SEC v. Ripple lawsuit (ongoing as of 2023), illustrate the legal ambiguity surrounding Web3 tokens. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) claims many tokens are unregistered securities, which could stifle Web3 innovation if broadly enforced.

6. Public Perception and Criticism

Hype vs. Reality: A 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that while 31% of Americans have heard of NFTs (a Web3 use case), only 2% own them, and many view them as speculative bubbles. Similarly, Web3 is often criticized as a buzzword lacking practical utility, as noted in a 2022 Harvard Business Review article.
Skepticism from Tech Leaders: High-profile critics, such as Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey, have publicly questioned Web3's value. Dorsey argued in a 2021 tweet that Web3 is "a centralized entity with a different label," pointing to the influence of venture capitalists in many Web3 projects.
Academic Critique: A 2023 paper in Information Systems Research suggests that Web3's promise of decentralization is undermined by the concentration of power in mining pools, large token holders, and centralized exchanges like Binance, which handle most Web3 transactions.

Summary of Key Findings

Adoption: Web3 technologies like cryptocurrencies, DeFi, and NFTs have seen significant growth, with hundreds of millions of users engaging with blockchain systems. However, mainstream awareness and active usage remain low (under 10% of internet users per ConsenSys).
Economic Impact: Investment in Web3 is substantial but volatile, with billions poured into startups. It is creating jobs but also raising concerns about wealth concentration.
Technological Barriers: Scalability, energy use, and security are major hurdles. Solutions are in development, but they are not yet widely implemented.
Societal Potential and Risks: Web3 offers possibilities for user empowerment and community governance but faces challenges in accessibility, privacy, and equitable participation.
Regulatory Landscape: Governments worldwide are grappling with how to regulate Web3, balancing innovation with consumer protection and financial stability.
Perception: Public and expert opinion is divided, with significant hype around Web3 contrasted by skepticism about its practicality and true decentralization.

Limitations of Current Research

It’s important to note that empirical data on Web3 is still emerging due to its novelty. Many studies are based on short-term trends (e.g., 2021-2023 market data) or speculative projections. Long-term impacts on society, economy, and technology are not yet fully understood. Additionally, much of the data comes from industry reports (e.g., Chainalysis, DappRadar) rather than peer-reviewed academic studies, which may introduce bias or incomplete perspectives.

Conclusion

Web3 represents a transformative vision for the internet, aiming to decentralize power and return control to users through blockchain and related technologies. While empirical data shows growing adoption, significant investment, and innovative use cases (like DeFi and NFTs), it also reveals substantial challenges in scalability, security, accessibility, and regulation. Public perception remains mixed, with enthusiasm from proponents and skepticism from critics. As Web3 continues to evolve, further research and real-world implementation will be crucial to assess whether it can deliver on its promises of a more equitable digital future.

In addition:

Web3 is a legitimate technological concept, but it's riddled with scams, overpromises, and predatory practices that make it feel like a scam to many.The Case For: Why Web3 Isn't (Entirely) a ScamAt its core, Web3's tech stack—blockchain, peer-to-peer networks, token incentives—enables real innovations. It's not vaporware; it's evolving, albeit slowly.

Decentralization and Ownership: Users can truly "own" digital assets (e.g., NFTs as provable ownership) and interact without gatekeepers. Projects like Ethereum enable DeFi (decentralized finance) platforms where billions are lent/borrowed peer-to-peer, bypassing banks.
Emerging Use Cases: Beyond crypto speculation, it's powering supply chain tracking (e.g., IBM's Food Trust), creator economies (e.g., royalty-enforcing NFTs on OpenSea), and privacy tools (e.g., decentralized identity via projects like Polygon ID).
Developer Momentum: As of 2025, over 10,000 dApps exist, with total value locked (TVL) in DeFi hitting $100B+ during peaks. Learning Web3 skills (e.g., Solidity for smart contracts) is a "smart move" for careers in blockchain dev, blending CS, economics, and security.
Not All Hype: Legit builders emphasize it's "early-stage tech" competing with centralized giants, not a get-rich-quick scheme. Tools like AI-driven fraud detectors (e.g., NOVA AI on Solana) show the ecosystem self-correcting.

Proponents argue dismissing Web3 ignores its potential, like tokenizing real-world assets (RWAs) for fairer finance.The Case Against: Why Web3 Feels Like a ScamCritics—and data—point to a ecosystem where 99% of projects fail or fraudulently exploit users. It's less "revolution" and more "capitalism in blockchain drag," with gas fees, rug pulls, and centralization undermining the ethos.

Red Flag	Description	Real-World Impact
Rug Pulls & Pump-and-Dumps	Devs hype a token/NFT, pump prices via influencers, then "rug" by dumping and vanishing.	Over $3B lost in 2024 to Sybil attacks and reward gaming alone. Sites like web3isgoinggreat.com track hundreds of cases, e.g., a 2025 Cardano fork scam.
Phishing & Impersonation	Fake airdrops, job offers, or "security alerts" trick users into signing malicious transactions.	Common on Telegram/Discord; one 2025 investigation exposed a scheme targeting all DeFi protocols. Address poisoning (fake tx history) is rising.
Fake Investments & Jobs	"Double your money" platforms or unpaid "tester" gigs that steal data/labor.	DFPI tracks 100+ complaints; e.g., web3app.rest scammed $2.5M via fake savings plans. LinkedIn "Web3 jobs" often demand wallet connects.
Hype vs. Reality	99:1 ratio of buzz to usable products; many "decentralized" projects are secretly centralized.	Bugs, high fees, and environmental costs (e.g., Bitcoin's energy use) alienate users.
Regulatory Blind Spots	Unregulated space breeds fraud; even "deaths" are faked for rug pulls (e.g., Jeffy Yu's 2025 meme coin stunt).	Global scam lists grew 20% in 2025.

X (Twitter) sentiment echoes this: Posts call it a "network of scams" or warn of "hidden labor exploitation." Even defenders admit 80% of startups flop or scam.Bottom Line: Proceed with Extreme CautionWeb3 isn't a monolithic scam—its tech has merit for decentralization and innovation—but the space is a minefield where bad actors thrive on FOMO and inexperience. Billions lost annually prove it's not "safe" yet. If you're exploring:

DYOR Always: Verify via official channels; use tools like Etherscan or RugReaper AI.
Never Share Keys: No seed phrases, no "gas fee" upfronts, no unsolicited links.
Start Small: Use hardware wallets (e.g., Ledger), test with tiny amounts.
Report & Learn: Check scam trackers (DFPI, CryptoLegal) and communities like r/CryptoCurrency.

For legit entry, focus on education (e.g., free Web3 dev courses) over speculation. It's the Wild West: Exciting for pioneers, deadly for tourists. As of December 2025, adoption grows (e.g., AI-Web3 integrations like OpenLedger), but so do scams—stay vigilant.

Persuasion: Trump is not another Hitler

Using principles and techniques from persuasion training (as outlined in an initial research on rhetoric, psychological theories, and Cialdini’s principles), here is a compelling, evidence-based argument tailored to influence Person B. This will incorporate ethos (credibility), logos (logic), and pathos (emotion), while applying methods like storytelling, social proof, and inoculation theory to address counterarguments. The tone will be respectful and empathetic to maximize rapport and the principle of "liking."

Persuasive Argument: Convincing Person B that Donald Trump is Not Another Hitler

Step 1: Establish Rapport and Ethos (Credibility)
To begin, Person A should build trust with Person B by acknowledging the seriousness of the comparison and showing understanding of why such a concern might arise. This uses Cialdini’s principle of "liking" by finding common ground and demonstrating fairness.

Example Opening Statement:
"Person B, I know why comparing Donald Trump to Hitler might come up—both figures are polarizing, and history teaches us to be vigilant about authoritarianism. I respect your concern because it shows you care deeply about protecting democracy and preventing atrocities. I’ve looked into this comparison myself, and I’d like to share why I believe Trump, despite his controversies, doesn’t equate to Hitler. Let’s talk through it with an open mind."

This rapport approach validates Person B’s perspective, reducing defensiveness, and establishes Person A as thoughtful and credible (ethos).

Step 2: Use Logos (Logic and Evidence) to Differentiate the Two Figures
Next, Person A should present clear, factual distinctions using logical reasoning, aligning with the Elaboration Likelihood Model’s central route for deeper persuasion. This involves historical context, specific actions, and measurable differences.

Key Points to Make:

Historical Context and Scale of Actions: Hitler led Nazi Germany, orchestrating the Holocaust, which resulted in the systematic genocide of six million Jews and millions of others, driven by explicit racial ideology. Trump, as a U.S. president from 2017-2021, operated within a democratic system with checks and balances, and while criticized for policies like immigration restrictions or rhetoric on race, there’s no evidence of intent or action on a scale remotely comparable to genocide or totalitarian control.
Supporting Data: The Holocaust’s death toll and documented Nazi policies are historical facts (source: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). Trump’s policies, even at their most controversial (e.g., the 2017 travel ban on certain Muslim-majority countries), were legally challenged and modified by courts, showing systemic constraints absent under Hitler’s regime.
Intent and Ideology: Hitler’s ideology, outlined in Mein Kampf, explicitly called for the destruction of entire groups and world domination. Trump’s rhetoric, while often inflammatory (e.g., comments on immigrants or political opponents), lacks a coherent genocidal or expansionist agenda. His public statements and policies focus on economic nationalism ("America First") rather than ethnic cleansing.
Supporting Evidence: Analysis of Trump’s speeches and policies by political scientists (e.g., Pew Research Center reports on his administration) shows no framework for systematic extermination or authoritarian erasure of democratic institutions comparable to Nazi goals.
Institutional Outcomes: Hitler dismantled democratic institutions, banned opposition, and controlled media through propaganda like Goebbels’ ministry. Trump, despite accusations of undermining trust in media ("fake news") or elections (2020 claims), left office via constitutional processes after losing the election, and no evidence exists of a successful coup or permanent power grab. The January 6th Capitol riot, while serious, was not a sustained, state-orchestrated effort akin to Hitler’s Night of the Long Knives or Reichstag Fire decree.
Supporting Fact: U.S. democratic institutions, including the judiciary and Congress, continued functioning during and after Trump’s term, as evidenced by legal rulings against his policies and the peaceful transfer of power in 2021.

By focusing on these concrete differences, Person A appeals to reason (logos), encouraging Person B to process the argument deeply rather than relying on emotional or surface-level comparisons.

Step 3: Leverage Pathos (Emotional Appeal) with Narrative
Using Narrative Transportation Theory, Person A can tell a story or evoke emotion to make the argument resonate. This also ties to Cialdini’s principle of "unity" by emphasizing shared values.

Example Narrative:
"Imagine being a Holocaust survivor or a family member of someone who lived through that horror—my own great-uncle fled Nazi Germany in 1939, barely escaping with his life. When I hear comparisons to Hitler, I think of his stories, the unimaginable loss, and I feel we must reserve that label for true genocidal evil so it never loses its weight. Trump’s flaws and rhetoric upset many, including me at times, but equating him to Hitler risks diluting the memory of those who suffered under true tyranny. Can we agree to critique leaders like Trump without losing sight of history’s worst lessons?"

This story humanizes the argument, connects emotionally (pathos), and subtly invites Person B to align with a shared respect for historical gravity.

Step 4: Apply Inoculation Theory to Address Counterarguments
Person A should preemptively tackle common reasons Person B might equate Trump with Hitler, such as authoritarian tendencies or divisive rhetoric. By presenting these in a weakened form and refuting them, Person A builds resistance to opposition (per Inoculation Theory).

Example Counterargument Handling:
"I know some point to Trump’s strongman style—his admiration for leaders like Putin or his ‘law and order’ stance—as Hitler-like. I get the worry; his words can sound authoritarian. But Hitler didn’t just talk; he abolished elections, jailed dissenters en masse, and weaponized an entire state against minorities. Trump’s actions, even at their worst, like pressuring officials over the 2020 election, were met with legal pushback and ultimately failed. Isn’t it more accurate to call him a flawed populist than a dictator on Hitler’s level?"

This acknowledges Person B’s potential concerns while redirecting the comparison to a less extreme conclusion, maintaining credibility and logic.

Step 5: Use Social Proof and Authority (Cialdini’s Principles)
Person A can bolster the argument by citing respected voices or widespread opinion, appealing to Cialdini’s principles of social proof and authority.

Example Statement:
"Many historians and political analysts, like those at the American Historical Association, have warned against casual Hitler comparisons because they obscure the unique horror of the Nazi era. Even critics of Trump, such as prominent Democrats or independent scholars, often frame him as a threat to democratic norms rather than a literal reincarnation of fascist genocide. If experts who study tyranny draw this line, shouldn’t we consider their perspective?"

This leverages external credibility (authority) and suggests a broader consensus (social proof), nudging Person B to align with informed opinion.

Step 6: Close with Commitment and Consistency (Cialdini’s Principle)
Finally, Person A should ask for a small agreement to build toward larger acceptance, using the commitment principle to encourage consistency in Person B’s thinking.

Closing Statement:
"Person B, can we at least agree that while Trump’s leadership style and policies might alarm us, comparing him to Hitler—a man responsible for millions of deaths and the destruction of entire communities—might overstate the case and weaken our ability to spot real dangers? Let’s keep criticizing leaders where it’s due, but with comparisons that fit the facts. What do you think?"

This seeks a minor "yes" (commitment) to the idea of measured comparisons, which can lead to broader agreement over time (consistency).

Why This Argument Works (Persuasion Training Techniques Applied)

Ethos, Logos, Pathos (Aristotle): The argument builds trust through empathy, uses factual distinctions for logic, and connects emotionally via storytelling.
Elaboration Likelihood Model (Central Route): Detailed evidence and reasoning target deep processing for lasting attitude change, especially if Person B is motivated to engage.
Cialdini’s Principles: Rapport (liking), expert references (authority), consensus (social proof), and small agreements (commitment/consistency) maximize influence.
Narrative Transportation: The personal story makes the argument memorable and relatable.
Inoculation Theory: Preempting counterarguments reduces resistance and strengthens Person A’s position.

Delivery Tips for Person A

Tone and Body Language: Speak calmly with a friendly demeanor, using nods and open gestures to signal understanding (per persuasion training on non-verbal cues).
Contextual Adaptation: If Person B is highly emotional, lean more on pathos and validation; if analytical, emphasize logos and data.
Avoid Confrontation: Never dismiss Person B’s view outright—use phrases like “I see why you might think that” to maintain rapport.

This structured argument, grounded in persuasion training, aims to shift Person B’s perspective by addressing both heart and mind while respecting their starting point.