The narrative surrounding Web 3.0 often paints it as a revolutionary force destined to replace Web 2.0. However, this perspective is not only outdated, but it's also incorrect. People are defining Web 3.0 based on what they want it to be, rather than what it is and is capable of. Instead of viewing Web 3.0 as a replacement for Web 2.0, see it as a layer, a feature, an augmentor, or an add-on to the existing internet infrastructure.
How did I arrive at these conclusions?
These conclusions are drawn from years of working in the Web3 space and observing its evolution. Recently, two key experiences stood out for me: my work on Home’s a Maze (HAM), an on-chain 3D game, and my experience using Swaye, a user-generated prediction market, over the past few weeks.
With HAM, where players can mint their results as NFTs, blockchain-enabled critical features like on-chain verification of achievements, but the game still relied heavily on Web2 infrastructure for real-time interactions and player engagement. This reinforced what I’ve understood for a long time—blockchain doesn’t replace Web 2.0 but works as a layer that extends its capabilities. Those claiming Web3 will completely replace Web 2.0 are missing the point; Web3 is more like a plug-in that enhances specific aspects.
Over the past few weeks using Swaye, I saw another important aspect of this reality. Swaye is a decentralized prediction market with real potential, but when the platform came under attack from bots, it became evident how much traditional infrastructure is still necessary. Even though transactions remained secure on-chain, the user experience was affected—market creation was disrupted, and trade data went missing. The team had to issue updates like:
"Some site functions are temporarily down due to intense traffic... Rest assured, all successful transactions are on-chain, and we are syncing our database to restore records."
This incident made it clear that while blockchain does deliver on its promise of secure, immutable transactions, it’s not yet a complete solution. For traditional users, ease of use and reliability often still come from systems that look and feel centralized. Features like real-time updates, UI management, and data syncs still depend on centralized infrastructure, because that’s what people are used to—and to change the culture, you have to first be a part of it. You can’t expect users to jump to fully decentralized systems overnight. The shift is gradual, and bridging the gap requires blending decentralized features with familiar, centralized structures.
This blend of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 is where “onchain” tech fits perfectly—it’s not about abandoning centralized systems but building on top of them with new decentralized capabilities.
Web 3.0 Enhances, Not Replaces Web 2.0
The common narrative that breaks down Web 1.0 as "read-only," Web 2.0 as "read and write," and Web 3.0 as "read, write, and own" is overly simplistic and often misleading. Web 2.0 already provides tools for managing digital identity and owning assets—think online banking, cloud storage services like Google Drive, and digital marketplaces such as eBay or Etsy. These platforms allow users to store data, make transactions, and own digital assets within centralized ecosystems.
Take IPFS (InterPlanetary File System), often hailed as a Web3 solution for decentralized file storage. While IPFS offers a distributed way to store and retrieve files, the end result—accessing a file via a URL—isn’t radically different from traditional cloud storage in terms of user experience. Both systems enable file hosting and retrieval, but IPFS adds the twist of decentralization, distributing data across multiple nodes. So, Web3 doesn’t introduce entirely new concepts; rather, it redefines how these concepts are managed, prioritizing decentralization.
The truth is, that many are defining Web3 based on their aspirations rather than its current state of development. In practice, Web 3.0 builds on top of Web 2.0, offering alternative ways to manage identity, data, and assets for those who prioritize decentralized control. However, it doesn’t eliminate the need for centralized systems. Web3 should be viewed more like a plug-in that enhances the internet we know today by adding features like decentralized finance (DeFi), digital asset ownership (NFTs), and distributed data storage. It provides new options, but the familiar centralized systems are still essential for user experience and accessibility.
Decentralization: One Option Among Many
The heart of Web 3.0 is decentralization, driven by blockchain technology, but it’s not always the best option for every use case. Centralized systems, particularly in Web 2.0, efficiently meet user needs without the added complexity of decentralization. While blockchain offers value in scenarios requiring transparency and trustless interactions, it can also introduce inefficiencies, higher costs, and increased complexity.
The future isn’t about choosing between a fully decentralized or centralized world; it’s about having the choice. Web3’s true potential lies in providing developers and users with the flexibility to select between decentralized and centralized models based on their project’s specific needs. The hype around Web 3.0 often oversells its immediate capabilities, overlooking the fact that not every application benefits from a decentralized structure. Embracing this choice allows us to leverage the strengths of both paradigms effectively.
Onchain: A Buzzword with a Clear Focus
The term "Web 3.0" often carries vague and broad implications of a complete internet transformation. In contrast, "onchain" is a more precise term that directly reflects what blockchain technology does: it facilitates transparent, immutable, and verifiable transactions.
Many enthusiasts define Web 3.0 based on their vision for decentralization, but “onchain” perhaps another buzzword, narrows the conversation to what’s happening today: actions and data verified by blockchain. It strips away the overhyped definitions and keeps the focus on the real value blockchain offers—verifiable, secure transactions. "Onchain" captures the essence of what makes this technology unique without promising an entire overhaul of how we use the internet.
Conclusion: Embracing the Evolution
It’s crucial to recognize that Web3 and its "onchain" counterpart aren’t about overthrowing Web 2.0 but about augmenting it with new capabilities. While decentralization offers exciting possibilities, it’s not a panacea for every use case. The real value lies in the ability to choose between centralized and decentralized solutions, leveraging the strengths of both to create a more versatile and effective internet. By understanding Web 3.0 as an evolution rather than a revolution, we can appreciate its role as a valuable extension of the web, enhancing but not replacing the systems we already rely on.