A frequently suggested benefit of web3 is that it brings more ownership to users. Although there is merit in the idea, the word “ownership” is confusing.
In technical terms, the invention is a database that runs permanently and independently of any organization or application. Users choose which application to use with the database. Developers build those applications confident that the database will remain and that they avoid the competitive disadvantage they would find themselves in by building on some other organization’s data.
You can see early examples of these benefits in the Farcaster social network. To use Farcaster, you can choose between Jam, Discove, Warpcast, or some other app that looks completely different. These apps compete to provide the best user experience. But they all interact with the same database - the Farcaster social network. The incumbent social networks don’t have this kind of competition. Their networks are tied to an application and an algorithm that runs the feed. But with Farcaster, developers can build new applications while no one, not even those who build Farcaster, can cut their access to the protocol or the database.
A new Farcaster user doesn’t get an immediate sense of ownership, but a sense of choice. To most, ownership is a concept tied to legal rights that are nowhere to be found on the blockchain. Ownership is a societal and legal concept as much as a technical one, while choice and permanence are not. The latter are entirely technical. Although we could technically use web3 technology to record rights and ownership, we are not there societally. Some day we could be, and that is important, but what is already real is equally important. And web3 brings something real already: choice to users and permanence to developers.