In the current cryptocurrency ecosystem we see many projects trying to take on the issues of a centralized web, but don’t truly understand the drawbacks of a decentralized web, how does Sentivate stand out from the rest of the pack when it comes to this issue?

This is the most important question and it separates us from every single project in this space looking to replace the web as we know it. Such projects don’t realize how the web works and it’s true pain points and advantages. Two of those core issues are how the domain system functions on a technological level and the data transport protocol being HTTP. The Web’s core topology isn’t a pain point in fact it’s one of its greatest advantages.

We need a fast and cheap web. The next Web has to be faster and we need to reduce friction between client and service.

Introducing a cat protocol which further complicates logic will only slow down the web. Forcing a service or the Web to rely on blockchain technology will severely slow down the service in question and the entirety of the Web. Web 3.0 projects see blockchain as a magic bullet or a cash grab not a specific tool for very specific jobs. We see many large companies offering blockchain services for building blockchain products. Those who profited a ton during the rush were the companies selling the shovels. There is a reason why blockchain isn’t replacing all of our favorite centralized services. The answer is simple: blockchain, when not utilized appropriately and for the right purpose, bottlenecks the service and makes scaling a lot more difficult and costly. When Web 3.0 projects say “it happens all on-chain,” that’s called a pipe dream.

It becomes more and more evident that they can’t deliver what they promise when they need to create another network that tries to centralize the blockchain’s operations. They realize that it’s a terrible idea to go fully decentralized for our web, it’s simply not possible, and far from rational to do so. It’s also just another cash grab to incentivize investments rather than involvement and creating worthwhile technology. Funny it is that they would need to create an additional network to sell another token to deliver what they said they were going to deliver initially. Once they start admitting to the fact that portions of their blockchain must be centralized, it hints at a much larger technological flaw that gets down to physics. If data needs to traverse more space and time to get to be displayed on a service it’s going to be a lot slower than the web we have today. We can only move data so fast if it needs to move through additional logic in a consensus algorithm to even be considered you just introduced a bottleneck and an attack vector which could render the entire web running on it useless.

Web 3.0 projects don’t address the real issues they may say they are but are far from doing so. When they say they are fixing DNS but aren’t actually providing a solution simply selling a “.ETH” “domains” on the Ethereum network. They tend to complain about the regulatory body that is ICANN, but stay quiet about the actual issues that are broken with DNS. The best paper to read in regards to exploring the broken bits of DNS is MinimaLT. That’s a brilliant piece of work although they had limited vision and an incomplete implementation none the less still genius work. DNS needs to be encrypted by default and instead of just providing traditional DNS info instead it provides a full, signed cryptographic certificate. This provides essential future requirements like geo-location based routing and 0-RTT by default. Things as simple as emoticon based domain registrations should also be provided. The issues related to ICANN they tend to bring up is that it’s a centralized entity that could be bought by the person with the largest pockets and censor sites. The reality is that some sites need to be censored, and some owners stripped of their domains. Those running criminal organizations that profit off of their domain shouldn’t be allowed to, for example, subject children to harm and turn a profit. Terrorists shouldn’t have an outlet for funding. There is a fine line in the sand. On the other hand those with political affiliations shouldn’t be de-platformed or de-banked because of opposing political beliefs. Trademark and copyright law need to be observed as well; but not without due process to protect against predatory trademark practices by those big and small, alike. In response to things like underage pornography, Web 3.0 projects say they’ll maintain a blacklist meanwhile they said in the beginning and the whole reason for them being decentralized is to stop censorship. If we have a web that can’t have data removed and deleted we have a very serious ethical dilemma and technological issue. Web 3.0 projects get caught in a conniption and fail to use rationality when attempting to solve the current problems facing the Web.

Fat protocols are what Web 3.0 projects need to avoid and not falsely market as a protocol analogous to HTTP. Many fat protocols rely on HTTP which is exactly a part of the Web’s core issues. That’s why we are creating protocols that are leaner and are Data Transport Protocols, not application layer fat protocols that create additional walls between client and service.

Another core issue being ignored is that our solutions drastically reduce is the bandwidth crisis. Humanity is quickly outpacing our networks capabilities. New devices, people, and developing countries are coming online. The toaster, microwave, and the fridge now talk to Google/Apple/Alexa. The objects around us are becoming connected to the web and that puts a ton of strain on our networks. Our real-time demands put time constrained actions on all our applications, which means that our networks are going to be clogged up with constant and nearly instant updates.

The laws of physics can only move data so fast. We must focus on what would have the largest impact before data prioritization and speed lanes are our only option.

They focus on blockchaining and/or decentralizing everything under the sun while failing to address the most pressing issues with the correct technology. This leads me to believe they are either ignorant or looking to turn a quick buck and I don’t know which is worse. Considering many of these projects were funded millions and somehow fail to deliver a product, what they promised, or simply blew through all the capital makes me think a combination of both. It’s true that running a business depends on profit; but it also comes with the responsibility and a duty to do the right thing.