Web3 as an illusion of freedom
Introduction
Web3 is the third generation of the internet based on blockchain and cryptocurrencies. It declared a high goal: decentralization was supposed to free users from the dictatorship of corporations and the state. A new world without intermediaries was promised, where data and money would be controlled solely by the people themselves.
However, in practice, things turned out to be more ambiguous. A paradox arises: technologies intended to grant freedom sometimes become tools of control.
The ideal of decentralization clashes with the reality of human society — with all its weaknesses, hierarchies, and need for order. In this article, I will share the other side of the coin: why Web3 may turn out to be an illusion of decentralization and how the new Web3 elites build their order without destroying the old one.
We will examine psychological aspects, historical parallels, and a concrete example of the TON blockchain to understand how the utopia of freedom turns into a new form of control.
The Illusion of Decentralization and the Inevitability of Moderation
A common misconception is that a decentralized system means a complete absence of rules and power structures. In reality, any living system with active human participation requires moderation and governance, or else it will be consumed by chaos, spam, and conflicts.
Decentralization is not disorder but distributed control.
Rules do not disappear — they are just administered by groups of enthusiasts or algorithms instead of a single corporation. But control remains, albeit in a different form.
Web2 history has already shown what complete freedom without moderation leads to: internet forums become breeding grounds for misinformation and toxicity if no one keeps order.
Web3 initially promised to solve these problems “autonomously” — via smart contracts.
However, the same questions arise in practice: who will ban scammers? How to prevent illegal content?
Often, the answer becomes the same community mechanisms and opinion leaders as before, only wrapped in a new shell. In most Web3 projects (DAOs), there is no principle of “one person — one vote” — influence is determined by the number of tokens acquired by money or early participation. Token distribution is usually arranged so that “rewards are proportional to investment”; there is no equality of votes.
In other words, initial large capital or insider status turns into greater voting power. This is no longer direct democracy, but direct plutocracy and hegemony. Formally everyone participates, but practically the “big players” decide everything.
Web3 Elites
Web3 grew under slogans of equal opportunities but in reality gave birth to its own privileged class. Those who first understood the technology, had capital to invest early, and managed to attract masses today can be called the Web3 elite.
These are founders and developers of top protocols, large token holders, and venture funds. Researchers already note that Web3 is more likely to form “a new, technologically savvy elite” rather than genuinely distribute power among all users.
This results in a sort of digital oligarchy: power is based not on origin or government positions but on access to technical expertise, investments, and controlling stakes of tokens. These people and organizations largely determine ecosystem development: they influence protocol updates, decide which projects receive funding and which do not.
Human Factor and Thirst for Power
History teaches that where new resources and power appear, so do those who want to possess them. Web3 involuntarily revealed familiar human vices: greed, vanity, and desire for dominance.
Recall the crypto boom of 2017 — thousands flocked to ICOs not so much for the ideology of freedom but hoping to get rich quick. This gold rush led to many cases where loud words about decentralization masked banal enrichment schemes. Many projects were launched not “to give power to the people” but to collect money and vanish or enrich a narrow circle of insiders.
Even large, seemingly successful enterprises sometimes turned out to be built on centralized fraud — a notable example being the collapse of the FTX and Alameda empire, where charismatic leader Sam Bankman-Fried, preaching good goals, was essentially running a financial pyramid.
People tend to believe charismatic prophets of the new era, and Web3 gave rise to such figures. While the masses enthusiastically talk about smart contracts and DAOs, these new leaders quietly gather levers of control — access to user data, keys to repositories, administrative rights to codebases.
Historical parallels can be drawn: almost any revolution proclaiming equality eventually led to the formation of a new elite.
After the French Revolution, power was seized by the Jacobins, then Napoleon — freedom was replaced by a new empire.
After the USSR collapsed, in the name of freedom the word “democracy” was quickly privatized by oligarchs.
The Web3 revolution is no exception. It was born from distrust of institutions (the 2008 financial crisis, global internet surveillance, etc.). Initially, crypto-anarchists dreamed of an autonomous world without “Big Brother.” But the system became complicated — step by step, old institutions (central banks, governments) entered it, and new power groups formed.
The case of TON
Manuel Stotz, president of the TON Foundation:
“Telegram is the sixth most popular app in the world… No blockchain has a comparable distribution channel. TON aims to provide Web3 access to more than 500 million users by the end of the decade.”
To illustrate, let us consider our favorite blockchain, TON.
TON was initially presented as a project meant to give millions of users financial freedom right in their phones.
Pavel Durov’s original idea: embed cryptocurrency into his messenger and create a decentralized ecosystem without state censorship or banking barriers. But reality brought adjustments.
Centralization at Launch Stage
To develop TON, Telegram’s team raised about $1.7 billion from investors in private sales. This fact alone — large investments from a limited circle — means the initial token distribution was far from democratic.
The U.S. regulator (SEC) saw Gram, then still in development, as an unregistered security and banned its launch through court. In 2020, Telegram officially abandoned the project, returned funds to investors, and released the code as open source. But by then, TON’s architecture already contained certain centralized elements, as critics noted.
People could reasonably ask: “Will TON really be honestly decentralized?” Some pointed out that TON’s architecture implies a masterchain under narrow control — otherwise, it is difficult to ensure instant transactions and no forks (though banning forks is generally hard to reconcile with decentralization, haha).
After Telegram left the project, TON was renamed “The Open Network” (previously Telegram Open Network), and the cryptocurrency was renamed Toncoin (formerly GRAM).
Governance passed to the developer community and the TON Foundation. It seemed like the real decentralized moment: the code is open, anyone can run a node. The network runs on Proof-of-Stake algorithm, and validators are indeed distributed worldwide. But consider: who controls the TON Foundation and the original code repository? Effectively, a group of enthusiasts close to the original team took stewardship of the project, registering the foundation in Switzerland and continuing its development. Of course, this is no longer Telegram’s sole control, but there remains a central coordinating center — albeit a nonprofit organization.
In key updates and initiatives, the TON Foundation and major validators play a decisive role. Again, the principle “whoever has more coins has more power” remains.
Even Durov was involved in development, though not publicly
It’s worth mentioning the community: who drives TON forward now?
These are influential figures in the crypto world, many of whom are large investors, entrepreneurs connected with Telegram, former VK or other projects. Around TON formed an elite: protocol developers knowledgeable about TON code; holders of large token amounts; Telegram channel admins shaping the “agenda.”
They may sincerely believe in decentralization ideals, yet in practice they direct the network’s development. Ordinary TON users are mostly passive — they just use what is created for them. Only validators can vote on network parameters. Thus, TON illustrates the general Web3 trend: outwardly a distributed network, but inside — no.
TON, conceived as a tool for freedom from state money, itself became a system where unofficial authorities decide much.
Web3: freedom under glass?
An interesting psychological point: people initially perceived cryptocurrencies as anonymous and privacy-protecting methods. Bitcoin in popular culture was associated with the shadow network where no one knows your name.
However, absolute privacy in Web3 is an illusion. Blockchain is an open ledger where every transaction is recorded forever. Yes, there are no real names, but there are addresses that, with some effort, can be linked to individuals.
Analytics companies working with governments have learned to track fund movements. Ironically, cryptocurrency may even be a more convenient surveillance tool than traditional money: all operations are transparently visible in real time.
That is why many states do not rush to ban blockchain but seek to master it.
Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are the next step in this evolution. Regulators realized that blockchain technology allows total monitoring of citizens’ financial flows.
Unlike cash, a digital ruble or euro leaves a digital trace of every purchase. Concerns are openly voiced that CBDCs will become “an instrument of total population control,” a kind of “digital concentration camp.”
Against this background, even skeptics have begun to regard Bitcoin and other private cryptocurrencies as a “guarantee of freedom” — a lesser evil compared to digital fiat money. This is an interesting turn: crypto-anarchists wanted independence from the state, but now their brainchild will be used by states themselves to tighten control.
Conclusion
Web3 has spawned many hopes and just as many misconceptions.
Decentralization turned out not to be absolute freedom, but a complex redistribution of control, where instead of one center there may be dozens — but the essence is unchanged: someone still holds the steering wheel.
Ultimately, Web3 reflects our society. If there are elites seeking power, they will find ways to dominate in blockchain too. If people are accustomed to handing over the reins, they will always do so.
Technology can ease control or resistance to it, but it does not cancel human nature and social laws. Perhaps true freedom online will come not from blockchain magic but from the evolution of users’ consciousness and new forms of self-regulation.
For now, we live in a transitional era: the old order is not yet broken, and the new one is already knocking — but it brings not only freedom but also new forms of total control. This paradox is an important lesson of Web3 that we all need to comprehend.
That’s all. Thank you for reading. This is not a goodbye. Author: t.me/kuznetsovton