Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2307.10222

Techno-Utopians, Scammers, and Bullshitters: The Promise and Peril of Web3 and Blockchain Technologies According to Operators and Venture Capital Investors

Amy A. Winecoff·Johannes Lenhard
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Proponents and developers of Web3 and blockchain argue that these technologies can revolutionize how people live and work by empowering individuals and distributing decision-making power. While technologists often have expansive hopes for what their technologies will accomplish over the long term, the practical challenges of developing, scaling, and maintaining systems amidst present-day constraints can compromise progress toward this vision. How technologists think about the technological future they hope to enable and how they navigate day-to-day issues impacts the form technologies take, their potential benefits, and their potential harms. In our current work, we aimed to explore the visions of Web3 and blockchain technologists and identify the immediate challenges that could threaten their visions. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 operators and professional investors in the Web3 and blockchain field. Our findings revealed that participants supported several ideological goals for their projects, with decentralization being a pivotal mechanism to enable user autonomy, distribute governance power, and promote financial inclusion. However, participants acknowledged the practical difficulties in fulfilling these promises, including the need for rapid technology development, conflicts of interest among stakeholders due to platform financing dynamics, and the challenge of expanding to mainstream users who may not share the "Web3 ethos." If negotiated ineffectively, these challenges could lead to negative outcomes, such as corrupt governance, increased inequality, and increased prevalence of scams and dubious investment schemes. While participants thought education, regulation, and a renewed commitment to the original blockchain ideals could alleviate some problems, they expressed skepticism about the potential of these solutions.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Amy A. Winecoff, Johannes Lenhard. 2023-11-07. Techno-Utopians, Scammers, and Bullshitters: The Promise and Peril of Web3 and Blockchain Technologies According to Operators and Venture Capital Investors. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10222

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Cross-Section of Stock Returns and AI Exposure

We study 380 trillion tokens of realized AI consumption across more than four hundred LLMs. We build a high-frequency AI factor and show that a long-short strategy based on firms' AI exposure earns significantly positive returns. The average strategy return is larger based on intensive, frontier-oriented AI consumption but smaller based on casual or open-weight usage. Internationally, the return spread is significant in developed countries but insignificant in emerging markets. Examining occupational AI exposure, we find more positive exposure in occupations intensive in nonroutine interactive tasks and more negative exposure in those intensive in nonroutine analytical tasks.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

What fidelity metrics miss: a structural check on synthetic educational data

Secondary use of educational records is increasingly mediated by platforms that share a differentially private synthetic version of a dataset and validate specific findings against the real data on request. The synthetic version is evaluated by comparing summary statistics of each variable, yet reported confirmation rates suggest that such comparisons do not predict which findings survive. We propose a structural check: the number of connected components of a weekly proximity graph over learners, tracked across a term. Across four annual cohorts of lower-secondary study-habit logs, the synthetic versions reproduced the level of this quantity and the shape of the weekly partition, but its variation across the term was between 2.6 and 4.9 times smaller than in the real data at a common working point, without exception, and those changes fell in different weeks: the synthetic cohorts single out the term's examination weeks and the real cohorts do not. We also show that a routine rule for setting the graph threshold makes naive comparisons between two datasets invalid, and illustrate this with an error of our own. The real curves are also distinguishable from marginal-preserving surrogates of themselves in all four cohorts, where three of the four synthetic ones are not, a comparison that needs no real data; these differences trace to what the generator was given.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

AI-Moderated Interviews for Market Research and Digital Twins Calibration

AI-moderated interviews are emerging as a scalable market-research method for generating consumer insights and building consumer "digital twins." Yet it remains unclear whether they match human-moderated interviews or improve on simpler, static data collection methods. In a pre-registered, between-subjects study (N = 317) with three industry partners, we compare AI-moderated (N = 139), human-moderated (N = 24), and static interviews (N = 154). AI moderation matches human moderation in depth, covers more themes, and, holding budget constant, recovers significantly more customer needs than human moderation or static interviews. However, participants sound more emotionally engaged when speaking to a live human. We then create digital twins using interview data and evaluate each twin against the participant's own held-out responses to six real-world marketing stimuli. We find that digital twins created from AI-moderated interviews predict consumer responses better than demographics-only personas. However, the additional richness from AI moderation does not translate into better quantitative predictions compared to static interviews. By analyzing open-ended thoughts generated from humans versus their twins, we find that prediction errors are connected both to differences in (self-reported) thinking styles between twins and humans, and to gaps between training and validation data (i.e., asking questions that are too far out of distribution).

cs.CY↗