Understanding Web 3.0: From Web 1.0/2.0 to Decentralized Applications

Author: Lin Guanhong ("Ghost under the fingertips"). Reprinters must indicate the source. Published books: "1.0 – Blockchain DApp Development Practice" and "2.0 – Blockchain DApp Development: Based on Public Chains".

1.0 – Blockchain DApp Development Practice

2.0 – Blockchain DApp Development: Based on Public Chains

It has been a while since I wrote, and I feel a bit rusty. Writing should be done with some regularity.

Web 3.0

The term "web" originally means a network. Adding "X.0" denotes a version of the network, which I interpret as the version of network applications used by users .

Just as industrial history moved from the steam era to the electrical era and now the information era , the internet has progressed similarly.

From a user’s perspective, the internet evolved from portals that only allowed read operations (Web 1.0) to the myriad applications that support read‑write operations (Web 2.0). The former is called web 1.0 , the latter web 2.0 .

Web 3.0 became popular recently, but it actually emerged years ago with the birth of blockchain DApps, which already existed as real‑world internet products. I will explain why later; its emergence is a natural step in the web’s evolution.

Plain View of Web 3.0

As a developer who has read many introductions to Web 3.0, the most intuitive explanation I have seen is the following (excerpt from an online article, with some extreme words removed):

Web1.0 = "read";
Web2.0 = "read + write";
Web3.0 = "read + write + own";
Example: Web1.0 is represented by portal sites like Yahoo or Sina, which provide information to users; Web2.0 is represented by blogs, Twitter, WeChat, TikTok, where users generate content; Web3.0 means the generated content data is owned by the users rather than controlled by the platform.

Additional explanation:

The subject of the operations is the user of the network. Read means the user can only view platform‑provided content and cannot modify or publish it. Read + write means the user can both view and edit content—for example, on this technical writing platform I can read articles and also publish my own. Whether the operation is read or read‑write , the data I see or publish is stored on the platform’s servers; if the server loses the data ( irreversible loss ), my published data disappears.

Web 3.0 adds the characteristic own , meaning that both the content a user sees and the content a user publishes are not stored on the platform but are owned by the user. In the current blockchain landscape, this "own" notion is somewhat of a half‑pseudo‑statement, which I will discuss later.

From a data‑storage perspective:

Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 store data in centralized data centers owned by platforms.

Web 3.0 stores data in decentralized applications, not owned by any platform.

Web 3.0 and Its Relationship with Blockchain

At present, blockchain is essentially a subset of Web 3.0. If we take the macro characteristics of Web 3.0 as a standard, applications built on blockchain technology fit within the Web 3.0 scope for the following reasons:

Blockchain itself is decentralized, and public chains provide data‑storage capabilities; application data is stored on chain nodes, satisfying decentralization.

User accounts are almost entirely based on wallet addresses , which can be generated offline and are fully controlled by the user.

Ownership of an address resides in the private key, which is held by the user, not the platform.

Looking at existing DApps, many well‑known examples have existed for years, such as DeFi projects like Uniswap , wallet solutions like MetaMask , and multi‑function account systems like DAS . All of these satisfy the characteristics of Web 3.0 applications, which is why I claim that Web 3.0 applications have already been born and continue to evolve.

Why is the claim that data ownership is fully in the user's hands a half‑pseudo‑statement? Because current public‑chain applications are not 100 % decentralized. For example, Proof‑of‑Work (PoW) and Proof‑of‑Stake (PoS) consensus algorithms each have vulnerabilities: PoW can suffer a 51 % attack, and PoS can lead to concentration of voting power. Although increasing the number of nodes reduces these risks, they never become zero.

I believe future technological advances will make Web 3.0 characteristics align more closely with the ideal.

Future Development of Web 3.0

Many applications already possess Web 3.0 features, but many sub‑domains are still missing. The future will inevitably bring more completeness, following historical trends.

Considering data decentralization in Web 3.0—where data is solely under user control—this is not yet realistic. For example, if a user posts illegal content on a social DApp, regulators cannot easily remove it; the platform cannot delete it, and the user must be forced to delete it, which is costly and impractical.

Therefore, truly decentralized Web 3.0 applications are unlikely to exist in practice; otherwise, they would become chaotic. Even if platforms cannot be regulated, they may still need to restrict access, making purely decentralized data useless. Future Web 3.0 companies will likely operate under regulatory frameworks. End