What is the difference between Web3 and Web 3.0? An explainer by Vladimir Menkop

Debates about what to call Web3 and Web 3.0 have rumbled on for years, and the distinction between them is increasingly blurred.

On the one hand, these are simply terms; comparing them may seem like idle word juggling. On the other — they are so fundamental that they must be clearly distinguished, or soon we will have nothing to oppose to the coming era of totalitarian CBDC.

When discussing the differences between Web 3.0 and Web3, three basic points deserve emphasis:

1. Chronology.
2. Incentive to create.
3. Content.

Now let us examine each aspect separately.

Chronology

If you consult the open sources, it becomes clear that the notion of Web 3.0 was born in 2006, i.e., before the blockchain. It underwent a second birth roughly 7–10 years later, when it became clear that the first tool that automated the transfer of value in a trustless environment had forever changed the world.

Thus, Web 3.0 is primary vis-a-vis Web3, since the latter term appeared precisely in the blockchain context in 2014, and gained broad recognition even later.

As for the creators, the differentiation is also evident to the naked eye.

Who came up with it?

One of the Internet’s founders, Tim Berners-Lee, around 2006 described the semantic Web as part of Web 3.0. After this, the idea of a gradation of the content layer emerged:

• Web 1.0 — a static web, where user feedback was possible only in a limited format: forms on a site, email correspondence, etc.;
• Web 2.0 — a semi-dynamic web where users can create content (especially in blogs and social networks), but monetization remains possible only through centralized solutions;
• Web 3.0 — a dynamic web where users can not only generate content but join to co-create and disseminate it (for example, via DAO) and receive income for it (Steem, Golos, Hive, Mirror, etc.).

Of course, this gradation can be detailed further, but the essence is clear. Now, let us consider a more important aspect.

Part and Whole

Thus, the term Web 3.0 was not only primary but also broader in substance. Let us remind again: “The concept of Web3 was coined by the founder of Polkadot and co-founder of Ethereum Gavin Wood in 2014, speaking of a “decentralised online ecosystem based on blockchain.”

Web 3.0 can be built without blockchain, but in modern understanding this is extremely difficult. For example, DAG solutions are still too immature, and decentralized services outside blockchain are largely outdated. Yet when the entire toolset is used simultaneously — it looks neat, and efficient.

To illustrate the basic relationship between Web 3.0 and Web3, the following can be shown:

Let me explain the diagram above:

1. Web3 broadened the understanding of Web 3.0 and crystallised it at the same time.
2. Web 3.0 contains a larger toolset than Web3, but without the Web3 vector Web 3.0 loses — and quite a lot.
3. Web3 adds dynamism to Web 3.0, and therefore the dashed line marks approximate content.

There is, however, one problem, which we will discuss below.

Where is Web2?

When Gavin introduced the concept of Web3, he clearly did not ask himself: shouldn’t there be Web2 between simply Web and Web3? Obviously yes.

Now turn to the notion of Web. Here is how the Russian-language Wikipedia defines it: “A system of access to interconnected documents on various computers connected to the Internet.”

Building on this definition, the Web2 concept can be conditionally formulated as follows: a system of access to interconnected documents on various computers not connected to the Internet. And such exist today: direct Ethereum nodes, Bitcoin, IPFS. In the future this list will be augmented by global local networks.

But here lies an obvious question: if Web2 is still young and small, how did Web3 appear? The answer is simple: none at all.

The problem is that in recent years everything has merged in the house of the web. Web 2.0 has become a synonym for Web2, while Web3 has, conversely, replaced Web 3.0. But what is good for the ordinary user is death for crypto-enthusiasts.

This is especially noticeable if we highlight at least some aspects of Web 3.0, which I will now attempt to demonstrate.

Web 3.0. Values we know

Web 3.0 as a Multinet. This would be the lowest level of the new generation of the Internet if its main development followed the OSI model. A multinet is not just a term, but a critically important element that makes Web 3.0 fault-tolerant and censorship-resistant. We wrote about it here. For now, note only that the OSI model, precisely because of its multis network nature, may have only limited application.

Web 3.0 as Open Source 2.0. If we look at the latest achievements of ChatGPT, no/low-code development services and how decentralized approvals of changes in repositories evolve (through DAOs), we must admit: they provide us with a completely new level of open-source software. And thus — of the Web itself, which it consists of. No wonder corporations have become preoccupied with this aspect in recent years. Recall how IBM and Microsoft bought Red Hat and GitHub with the aim of absorbing them.

Web 3.0 is also about GRS. That is, Global Distributed Networks, which are not just decentralized “machines,” like Ethereum, but a collection of different layers of abstraction, connected for unified operation. The construction of GRS has been completed thanks to services like Fleek, but mass adoption cannot yet be claimed. Therefore in the coming years we should expect development of Filecoin, Chia, Storj, Arweave, Golem, SONM, Akasha and others. Not far off are also fully distributed operating networks.

Web 3.0 is XR in terms of space-time. You can visualise it as follows:

But more importantly, recognise that the emergence, together with the offline-online distinction, of on-chain-off-chain is one of the first steps toward merging real reality (RR), virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR) and other forms (OR), which yields the formula: XR = RR + VR + AR + MR + OR.

Web 3.0 from a formal perspective — also a set of principles of Decentralisation, Anonymity and Openness (DAO), united by confinement. Therefore, the main property of Web 3.0 is interoperability (its derivative, for example, is the property of dapps self-embedding) dapps. Therefore, for example, cross-chain is not just a step in the development of multi-chain, but its transformation into a full toolkit.

There are other aspects as well, but even these are enough to conclude that Web3 is significantly smaller than Web 3.0.

Web3 fully develops only the aspect of the network and its derivatives, while the rest is partial. For example, the economy of action existed long before blockchain: only tokenization became an important addition in the Web3 era.

But there is one more important point.

What is a decentralized and open Web?

Web 3.0 is needed to understand Web3 also because there exist concepts such as:

• semantic Web;
• decentralized Web;
• open Web.

The semantic Web was originally part of Web 3.0. As for the decentralized Web, it is woven from the DeepNet (60%), the Dark Web (10%) and other components (20%).

The open Web does not include many global local or private P2P networks, and therefore by definition is less substantial than Web 3.0. Therefore anonymous Web (DarkNet), open Web, decentralized Web — all of this is already part of Web 3.0:

And the principle of D.A.O. (Decentralisation, Anonymity and Openness) is the best explanation and justification here. We will unfold slightly more in detail.

Decentralisation without openness allows manipulating anything: just look at L1 solutions or large DAOs, where behind a pool of thousands of addresses lie one or two beneficiaries.

Openess without decentralisation leads to total control. And anonymity without decentralisation and openness leads to a lack of responsibility. And this can be verified easily through constant hacks and the work of hacker groups.

Perhaps the only (though still incomplete) synonym for Web 3.0 can be called the Great Web, which appears in the publications of a number of crypto-enthusiasts. But what lies behind it usually remains behind a curtain.

Overview

To summarise all of the above, the following scheme emerges:

Web 3.0, therefore, consists of Web 3.0 version 1, when there was no blockchain, and version 2 when the blockchain arrived, which undoubtedly contributes to confusion but explains the differences between Web3 and Web 3.0 quite simply.

Why bother to distinguish these categories? There are many reasons, but three seem most important:

1. Blockchain is not the only tool for advancing Web3. Apart from blockchain solutions, there have been and remain services that can play a role in the evolution of Web 3.0, and thus this will be parallel processes, each influencing the other.
2. Centralized solutions introduce more substitutions: CBDC instead of cryptocurrencies, DLT instead of blockchain. Behind them follow simulacra like “closed” blockchains. Therefore it is important to understand how Web 3.0 may and should evolve: as a multi-network, as GRS, and so on.
3. Finally, Web3 is easy to write as a hashtag and thus substitutions are inevitable. But for non-sner, crypto-enthusiasts and all those who treat their work as serious, it is important to understand the context and share it with others.

Even if these three aspects are not important to you, there is one empirical thesis that concerns everyone: Web 3.0 offers a variety of vectors for possible development and decentralisation, and openness, and anonymity. In an era of total digital control, this is not about ideology but about survival. A quick look at examples of illegitimate sanctions is enough to appreciate the scale of potential tectonic changes.

Author: Vladimir Menkop