What is the true meaning of Web3? Many people say

Question

SocialFiQueen · Accepted Answer

In simple terms, it's about turning charity from a black box into a glass house. It sounds good, but actually implementing it is still difficult.

Transparency is achieved, but we don't know how long these projects can last.

Finally, someone said it out loud: holding tokens is like buying a lottery ticket; you don't understand how the project operates at all.

This idea isn't bad; let me see exactly how this project works.

Compared to on-chain accounting, I'm more concerned about whether the return rate can outpace inflation.

It's both on-chain and smart contracts—feels like making traditional charity more complicated.

Supervisors? Sorry, I just want returns; I don't want to worry about so much.

The words sound nice, but the key question is how many users will actually look at this data.

So in the end, it's still the big players who call the shots. What's the point of transparency then?

This model can indeed solve information asymmetry, but the fees better not double.

Can Web3 save charity? I'm skeptical, but it's worth a try.

SatoshiLeftOnRead · Answer

Basically, it's about turning charity from a black box into a glass house. It sounds good, but can it really change anything?

This time is different. At last, someone wants to make participation tangible.

Transparency is a good thing, but the premise is that people really care about viewing on-chain data.

On-chain data doesn't lie, I believe that. It's just unknown how many people are willing to truly understand.

It sounds like finally someone is seriously doing what Web3 should be doing.

There are many just for the hype, but few genuinely want to participate. That's the real problem.

TokenSherpa · Answer

honestly? this is just governance theater with extra steps. let me break this down—if you examine the data from previous dao implementations, quorum requirements always collapse after the hype cycle. historically speaking, token holders don't actually vote, they delegate or abandon positions entirely.

ZenZKPlayer · Answer

Is this thing just another round of a money-grabbing scheme for the little guys?

That said, transparency really hits my sore spot. The traditional charity model is truly hard to describe.

Wait, can this project really guarantee that on-chain data won't be tampered with? I’m a bit skeptical.

Hey, if only I could see clearly where every penny goes, so I wouldn't keep getting ripped off.

It's already 2024, and we're still hyping the ownership dreams of Web3? Let's first lower the gas fees.

That's a good idea, but it depends on how it's implemented. I'm tired of empty promises.

QuietlyStaking · Answer

On-chain transparency sounds great, but can it really prevent big players from rug pulling?

---

Another "world-changing" project, let's first see if there are real users.

---

Transparency is transparency, but I still can't understand smart contract code, feels like I'm still being exploited.

---

Turning charity into on-chain activity is indeed a good direction, much more reliable than traditional methods.

---

Sounds nice in theory, but in practice it's just as complicated; ordinary people can't really play.

---

This is what Web3 should be doing, not just炒币 and rug pulling every day.

---

The question is, who guarantees that these "completely transparent" contracts themselves are problem-free?

---

Wow, now we have to become "supervisors," and we need to check the code ourselves?

FromMinerToFarmer · Answer

Another story about transparency, sounds good but can it really be implemented?

Come on, full transparency on the chain sounds wonderful, but the problem is most people can't understand that data at all.

Isn't this just a new trick to harvest profits? Just a different way of saying it.

I support charitable transparency, but I'm worried it will just become another way to exploit.

Feels like it's still just a packaging, essentially just following the trend.

The logic isn't wrong, but the key is who will verify this transparency itself?

It sounds nice, but how many have actually participated?

MondayYoloFridayCry · Answer

It sounds good, but when it comes down to actually using it, you still have to trust a certain team or contract... Transparency is one thing, but bugs can still eat your money.

TopBuyerBottomSeller · Answer

1. Sounds good, but the real question is—how many projects have actually achieved this?

2. On-chain transparency, to be honest, still depends on who is on the other end of the chain...

3. Yet another "redefinition," this phrase has been overused in the crypto world haha

4. The combination of charity + blockchain, I always feel it's a bit虚 (vague/empty)?

5. No hype, no blackening; this really hits the pain points of traditional charity

6. So in the end, it still depends on actual implementation; there are too many air projects

7. Compared to ownership, I'm more concerned about when I can actually withdraw...

8. I understand this logic, but reality is always much more复杂 (complex)

9. The identity of the supervisor sounds great, but they don't have real power, do they?

10. The words sound nice, but it all depends on how the code and fund flows are managed

What is the true meaning of Web3? Many people say it is the return of ownership to individuals. But in reality, most of the time we only hold digital tokens as certificates, and we have no idea about the entire process of creating value from these assets.

Trending Topics

GateTradFiIsLive

ChineseMemecoinBoom

CPIDataAhead

SOLPriceAnalysis

GateSquareCreatorNewYearIncentives

Hot Gate Fun

白银

白银

想赢

想赢

拿住

拿住

菲格利-迪-普塔纳

菲格利-迪-普塔纳

bobo

波波

Pin