How Do Top Silicon Valley VCs Deploy Investments in the Web3 and Metaverse Sectors?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
How Do Top Silicon Valley VCs Deploy Investments in the Web3 and Metaverse Sectors?
The Meta30 Forum's special event explored how top Silicon Valley VCs are positioning themselves in the Web3.0 metaverse赛道.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsMetaverse 30 Forum is a thematic event hosted by the Hong Kong Blockchain Association, exploring how top Silicon Valley VCs are deploying the Web3.0 metaverse赛道 (track). Speakers include:
Wendy (Moderator): Deputy Secretary-General of the Metaverse 30 Forum
Richard Wang: Partner at Draper Dragon Innovation Fund, Honorary Dean of the Hong Kong Blockchain Association’s Metaverse Education Academy
Tony Tong: Co-founder of both the Hong Kong Blockchain Association and its initiated Metaverse Education Academy; Zhai Geyang: Founder of Tagging, Joint Chair of the Hong Kong Blockchain Association, Vice Chair of the Youth Federation of Hong Kong CPPCC Members
On the topic of how top Silicon Valley VCs deploy leading tracks in the Web3.0 metaverse, these speakers engaged in thorough and in-depth discussions during the dialogue session.
Tony: Let me start with my understanding of DFJ. Everyone should know DFJ—it's legendary since the Web1.0 Internet era. Tim Draper, known as the godfather of Silicon Valley venture capital, famously bought 30,000 bitcoins for less than $1,000 from the U.S. government at an auction—an excellent entry point. He has consistently supported the blockchain industry. As someone who began as a coding-based internet tech developer, previously working at Accenture and other major institutions in centralized database administration and large-scale banking system development, I’ve witnessed the evolution from Web1.0 to interactive Web2.0, and now to value-driven Web3.0. First, Richard, could you introduce your institution, especially DFJ and the legendary story behind its founders?
Richard Wang: It's truly an honor to join the Hong Kong Blockchain Association as honorary chair and collaborate with seasoned professionals here to co-create our future world. When discussing Web3, several principles must be upheld—co-construction, sharing, and co-governance. That’s the foundational spirit. Our fund leader in Silicon Valley is Tim Draper, who founded DFJ in 1985—known in China as DeFengjie. The firm now has over 30 years of history.
DFJ gained significant prominence both in the U.S. and China due to two key reasons. First, the Draper family is a so-called venture capital dynasty. What does that mean? Tim’s grandfather entered this field in the 1950s, followed by Tim’s father, who also established a venture capital firm. Then Tim himself founded DFJ in 1985. This makes them a four-generation VC family. Tim’s son, Adam Draper, runs an incubator called Boost VC, notably making an early angel investment in Coinbase back in 2012—a now publicly listed company in the U.S. Thus, they represent a fourth-generation legacy in American venture capital.
When examining any phenomenon, we should understand its history—for instance, what is the origin of “big cake” (Bitcoin)? How did the Chinese term "blockchain" come about? Where did the English word originate? Understanding historical roots helps us grasp underlying logic. So when discussing venture capital today, remember it refers to early-stage rather than late-stage investment—it’s not PE. As everyone knows, higher risk brings higher returns. The entire venture capital model evolved from individual angel investors gradually becoming institutionalized into early-stage investment firms. In ancient times, it was personal acts—like a wealthy landowner funding a scholar’s education. How did this become institutionalized?
It began in the 1950s in the U.S., when government agencies first stepped in, offering matching funds if private angel investors were willing to take risks. This mirrors today’s domestic local guidance funds—perhaps one could say China learned from America’s VC industry concept: government matches capital, early-stage institutions contribute, together supporting high-risk early projects.
Secondly, among DFJ’s many sister funds, one provided Baidu’s initial $2 million investment—this is why we have visibility in China. Additionally, DFJ was the first institutional investor in Elon Musk’s Tesla when Musk needed external funding.
These two points largely explain DFJ’s reputation. Continuing forward, as Tony mentioned, our strategic positioning in this sector stems from our fund’s core philosophy: freedom and trust. Only through openness, freedom, and full trust can we advance human civilization. Based on this belief, we explore all possible technological solutions and innovative transformations. Our slogan is “Seeking dreamers who change the world.” We don’t want people building what already exists—we invest in those creating the unimaginable, things only dreamed of. The most extreme example? Going to Mars—changing the world so radically you abandon Earth altogether. That’s the kind of vision we support. That gives you a sense of our story.
Tony: Thank you, Richard, for sharing insights about DeFengjie (DFJ). I first met Tim Draper around 2002 at a venture capital forum in Shenzhen, where all the internet giants gathered. I remember Tim being incredibly energetic—halfway through his speech, he started dancing on stage. I thought, this guy is special—and very humorous toward entrepreneurs and young people. Since then, every time I visited Silicon Valley, I made sure to visit him, including Hero City and Draper University. I later noticed that although DFJ is an American VC firm, more and more Chinese partners have joined. Richard, could you share how this evolution happened and how it attracted many partners, especially Chinese ones, to your organization?
Richard Wang: Thanks, Tony. Let me first highlight Tim’s personal traits—he’s genuinely approachable and passionate about encouraging entrepreneurs. Let me give a few examples. In Silicon Valley, Tim uses his own video programs to articulate his worldview as an investor—we invest in the future, after all. You need charisma to attract viewers on video platforms, and Tim, being extroverted, enjoys engaging directly with founders.
Another point Tony raised is our university, Draper University, which strictly admits students aged 18–28. Regardless of Tim’s age, he constantly interacts with young entrepreneurs and fresh ideas.
I often say externally that our Web1.0 and Web2.0 investments targeted post-70s generations; ten years later, we invested in post-80s. Now, are we investing in post-90s? But here’s the real question—not just the founders, but the audience. Our users shifted from post-80s to post-90s, then post-00s, now even post-10s. These are our customers.
Therefore, I must understand not only post-80s, post-90s, and post-00s, but even post-10s—they’re the target audience for the startups we back. If I don’t understand their appetites, I can’t evaluate a project. Hence, constant interaction with youth is essential. Tim’s enthusiasm and extroversion stem from his desire to embrace new things—not just new inventions, but new lives, i.e., these young people.
In the blockchain space, many successful new entrepreneurs are young—rarely post-70s, mostly post-90s. Young founders bring fresh thinking and courage to break norms and become “dreamers changing the world.” Post-70s and post-80s carry too much baggage to take bold risks. At 20, you have nothing to lose—you’re far more willing to gamble than at 50. So naturally, we seek young founders.
Tim himself is relaxed during team-building events. There’s a Western mindset: “Play hard, work hard”—entertainment and work are deeply intertwined. Contrary to popular perception, top Silicon Valley investors aren’t always serious—I’m not either. Tony also mentioned our various organizations—Hero City, Draper University, and another entity called Draper Venture Network, a global investment network. What does that mean?
We have sister funds in every region—Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, Dubai, London, India, Brazil—with roughly 20+ such funds globally. Each has local offices identifying regional entrepreneurs and growth opportunities. So it’s not that we have many Chinese partners—it’s that we’re one of these branches: Draper Dragon. Since 2005, we’ve integrated cross-border resources between China and the U.S.—U.S. technology with Chinese markets, Chinese startups entering U.S. markets, or Chinese AI companies recruiting American engineers. This cross-border advantage is Draper Dragon’s hallmark, while other sister funds have their own specialties.
As noted earlier, Draper Dragon has more Chinese partners—but not exclusively—we also have foreign partners. Our focus is primarily on blockchain, though Draper Dragon invests beyond blockchain. We manage both USD and RMB funds. Our current RMB fund emphasizes healthcare—we have a fourth RMB fund focused on medical and health sectors. Previously, our first and second RMB funds backed numerous chip design and EV projects. Today, our RMB fund prioritizes healthcare. Meanwhile, our USD fund increasingly focuses on blockchain and metaverse domains. Within these areas, we welcome talented individuals with resources to join us in advancing the venture capital mission.
Zhai: Thank you, Chairman Tony and Richard. This year feels like the dawn of Web3. I notice increasing interest—from traditional internet giants to funds and VCs—all asking: What is Web3? How do we chase Web3? What startup projects should we pursue in Web3? These are questions I’d love to ask Richard later.
Let me briefly share my view on Web3. Since last year, the metaverse concept exploded. With mobile internet advancement, more people care about data security, privacy, and digital asset ownership—given billions of global internet users.
Chairman Tony and I discussed this back in 2019 when I worked on industrial intelligent big data, using algorithms to precisely extract user preferences and build user profiles. But 2019 marked the beginning of internet regulation—the EU’s privacy laws emerged alongside frequent data breaches—raising awareness: Who owns the data I leave online?
Last year, NFTs—breaking out from metaverse and blockchain circles—drove more people into crypto and Web3. Our Web3 project Tagging, a metaverse application, was conceived in 2019 and positioned in 2020 as a metaverse social app protecting users’ data assets.
Why this positioning? We asked: In the future, designers will issue NFTs—what use cases exist beyond using them as social media avatars? This became Tagging’s key entry point: we aim to build SocialFi and practical applications so that project owners, designers, and NFT holders gain utility beyond secondary trading.
Recently, growing attention to Web3 includes learning crypto and blockchain knowledge. Many wonder when to enter—media articles talk about “escaping Web2, chasing Web3,” slogans like “become Web3” emerge. Programmers from traditional internet giants feel anxious, and traditional VCs too. So I’d ask Richard: How do you view this historically pivotal year? Why are people focusing on the Web3赛道 now—is there a wealth code or major opportunity?
Richard Wang: Web3 isn’t a new term—it was coined nearly a decade ago, even before blockchain. Why did it heat up recently? Primarily due to U.S. capital markets, particularly A16z. They’ve consistently invested in so-called Web3 startups, promoting and funding Web3, creating a hot trend. Their Twitter debates with Twitter founder Jack Dorsey added fuel. Whether Web3 or Jack’s joke about Web5 (“skip Web3 and Web4 to Web5”)—it’s still a joke.
But the essence? Regardless of WebX, the key for entrepreneurs and investors is whether a project creates commercial value. Traditionally, production meant factories and heavy investment. But in the digital economy, everything counts—today’s livestream, a spoken sentence, is production. Producing words, opinions, data—is production.
How do we convert this into commercial value? Don’t think only in terms of traditional revenue and profit. Maybe my words inspire someone, sparking a project a year later—that’s value. We’re exploring how to return value to all contributors. In Web3, this is “data sovereignty”—not merely ownership, but capturing data’s intrinsic value. Web3 comprises many elements—it’s like an elephant, each person touching a different part: leg, trunk, tail. No one sees the whole picture. In fact, Web3 may not even be an elephant—it might be a “chimeric creature,” because no authority defines it. Web3’s definition must evolve organically through daily contributions from users present and future. It grows; it’s not static. That’s its beauty.
But returning: Once value is created, how do we ensure fair sharing? This ties to another Web3 concept: stakeholder alignment. Traditionally, we separate producers and consumers—shareholders, managers, employees, customers. Web3 uses blockchain to close this loop: producers become consumers, consumers become shareholders. Another crucial concept in Web3 is “stakeholder”—those with shared interests. My actions must benefit participants. Contributors on Facebook, Twitter, Weibo, WeChat feed data endlessly yet gain nothing—not even control over their data. That’s what Web3 aims to fix: first grant users power—not benefits, but rights—ownership.
Building this chimeric Web3 infrastructure requires massive investment. Within it lie diverse applications—DAOs, metaverse infrastructures, financial services. As Zhai mentioned, SocialFi is also on our radar. But ultimately, regardless of project type, the core question remains: Can it generate commercial value?
Tony: Hong Kong ranks among the faster-developing regions in blockchain, NFTs, and metaverse, with top-tier economic freedom globally. In recent years, many prominent blockchain companies emerged here—crypto.com, FTX (founded in 2019)—plus firms in NFT and GameFi (gaming finance). Post-pandemic, we’ve seen explosive growth in “play-to-earn” and gaming innovation, with traditional games like Angry Birds undergoing transformation.
Previously, playing games offered satisfaction via scores or rankings. With blockchain and NFTs—especially overseas—your characters, items, IPs, and intellectual property gain direct monetary value. This empowers creators—artists, digital artists, musicians—to directly own their data and monetize IP as NFTs abroad or digital collectibles domestically. Tony asks Richard: How can blockchain unlock business opportunities in gaming finance and IP rights monetization?
Richard Wang: Indeed, Hong Kong hosts strong fintech firms in this domain. Tony mentioned digital collectibles—I believe we can still refer to NFTs domestically. An NFT isn’t inherently a trading instrument. Its essence? It digitizes rights—thus serving as a digital certificate. Technically, an NFT is a digital certificate generated via blockchain (ERC-721 protocol), a chain of code. At the technical level, that’s all it is.
So how do we derive business models from this digital certificate? Consider a practical example: In a digitized society, physical property deeds become obsolete. Instead, you receive an encrypted electronic document on your phone—a unique QR code visible only to you, one per household.
How do we build a business model around this? Whatever you do with property deeds today—mortgage, loan, rent—you can do the same. There’s no need to overextend or worry about NFTs—their essence is simply digital certificates.
The real question is: What do we do with these digital certificates? Let’s categorize them. Digital certificates may be collectible—art, paintings; functional—tickets, boarding passes; or purely financial—assets. In reality, both collectible and functional types hold value—not necessarily as assets, but they’re valuable, exchangeable. All digital certificates are interchangeable. For example, graduating from Peking or Tsinghua University grants you a degree. Instead of a paper diploma, you get a QR code with your name and password—a digital certificate. This holds value: job hunting, networking, dating apps. Your worth is embedded here. NFTs and digital certificates aren’t alien to life—they’re already part of it, like the property deed example.
Second, with digital certificates and mature technology, we can split or merge them. Previously, one house had one deed, one buyer. Now, one deed can sell to 1,000 buyers—enabling pooling, sharing, creation. Earlier, we mentioned IPs—two IPs generating a third. Technically, merging two QR codes creates a new one, spawning derivative concepts. Let me go deeper—especially regarding Web3 infrastructure: decentralized ID. Let’s skip “decentralized ID” and just call it digital ID.
Today, your ID is a card, but fundamentally, it’s a digital ID encoded as numbers—a digital certificate. Your personal ID is an NFT. Why is this ID critical in Web3? From birth to death, without an ID, no one knows who you are. Your data lacks provenance, reference value—you cease to exist.
Thus, IDs, NFTs, etc., form Web3’s foundation. Whether in NFT applications, various metaverses, or DAOs, IDs are essential. An ID isn’t limited to personal identity—it includes phones, emails, WeChat accounts, Facebook profiles. One person has multiple IDs, each carrying information, data, and assets. Lose one ID, and part of your societal existence vanishes—because you’re no longer recognized. Lose your phone number, and carriers won’t recognize you, banks won’t verify you—identity verification controlled by telecom operators highlights the need for decentralization. Back to the question: Projects are feasible, but can they create commercial value? Whether NFT-based or not isn’t crucial. Key is whether music IP, community sharing, or collaborative songwriting can yield viable business models. Ultimately, we must assess value and profitability.
Tony: You mentioned your school in Silicon Valley. I’ve also noted Stanford University announced issuing certain course certificates via NFTs. Therefore, our Hong Kong Blockchain Association and Metaverse Education Academy recently partnered with Hong Kong Institute of Financial Management and ITU.edu (International Technological University) in Silicon Valley to launch a series of metaverse and blockchain courses. We plan to issue graduation credentials as NFTs. I believe virtual characters—robots, 24/7 customer service, or a virtual Tim Draper answering entrepreneurial questions online—will grow common. Companies will increasingly rely on such virtual roles. Zhai, could you share solutions your current project offers in this area?
Zhai: Thank you, Chairman Tony. Why is our app called Tagging? “Tagging” means labeling. Our Shenzhen entity is Shenzhen Tagging Data Co., Ltd., yet we’re building a metaverse social app. It involves several steps. Actually, I wanted to discuss with Richard: Which industries and data types cannot be solved by Web2 and absolutely require Web3?
I believe it’s social data—the most critical layer. Everyone has been using the internet for over a decade, including the mobile internet era. The ownership of data left on every social platform remains unresolved—a point Richard just highlighted.
Second, how do we circulate this data? Do we control it? Tagging aims to gradually enable users in the metaverse to own their data assets. How? Our first step starts with NFTs. We don’t need real identities in the metaverse—many WeChat avatars aren’t real photos. More commonly, we use virtual avatars. Or consider the NPC concept from metaverse films. In the metaverse, people will increasingly prefer virtual avatars for socializing, interacting, existing, and connecting with others. This virtual avatar—a self-owned NFT—can produce, carry, and access data.
Through this approach, Tagging hopes every user gets their own NPC—first minting a unique NFT avatar. This avatar becomes their mode of interaction with others, along with their personal digital asset wallet.
Why “tagging”? After extensive discussion, we realized: What data deserves to go on-chain? Images can go on-chain directly as digital certificates—we hash them, bind to wallets for verification.
But how about social data? Every day we type countless messages. Should all this chaotic data go on-chain? How would that work? We devised a “tag” method. Tags resemble youth interactions like bullet comments—each under seven characters. We quantify interactions: All NPC-NPC exchanges occur via tags—one of our product’s features. What value lies in data assets accumulated through tags?
It ties back to the metaverse’s game-like immersion and social nature. We hope each user’s NPC accumulates their NLP—linguistic patterns—by interacting with other NPCs via tags. Users train their NFT avatars by tagging and untagging, creating new experiences. Recently, thousands of digital humans emerge daily on Xiaohongshu, Douyin, and domestic digital collectible platforms. But where do these digital humans go? What’s their value and meaning?
We see elaborate 3D digital humans on Xiaohongshu costing tens of thousands, yet gaining minimal traffic—why? Because real users lack connection with digital humans—no emotional exchange. These digital humans lack soul—empty images without deep social or interactive attributes. Tagging aims to give every digital human a soul and data value. Users can interact with others using their digital avatars. This is the metaverse social scenario we envision. A question for Richard: We’ve seen NFT music and NFT avatars—feasible. But from your perspective, how should we handle social data? Technologically and content-distribution-wise, how can we transform user producer relationships? What’s your take on Web3.0 as a shift in production relations? What breakthroughs would enable true interoperability of social data?
Richard Wang: Thank you, Zhai. You’ve touched on many Web3-aligned concepts. Before answering, let me clarify how we understand Web3. First, it’s unrelated to blockchain. So when you ask about going on-chain, Web3 doesn’t inherently depend on blockchain—no direct or necessary link. Among Web3 startups, some may use blockchain, many won’t. Web3 may involve decentralization, but not all Web3 needs decentralization. Earlier I stressed: User autonomy is paramount—not decentralization.
What comprises Web3? Zhai mentioned virtual humans, idols, digital beings. Let me cite examples. Most virtual humans today are either anime-style or hyper-realistic—two main types. In reality, both rely on humans behind the scenes doing motion capture. Tony mentioned 24/7 online interaction—impossible with a real person behind it.
Even if AI generates imagery—say I work 8 hours, AI handles the rest—it’s feasible and unrelated to blockchain. Such tech existed a decade ago—AI bots replying emails, analyzing texts, automating responses. So Web3 has three pillars. The first is artificial intelligence. Some may think AI is old news—security cameras, etc.—but AI must be embedded within the internet itself. Today’s Web2 lacks sufficiently embedded AI. Future Web3 must integrate robust AI—it’s fundamental, a cornerstone.
Returning to user autonomy: Without capable AI, your data can’t be programmed or assessed for privacy. Without AI, it’s not Web3. A second pillar is Edge Computing. A simple example: Why is edge computing crucial? You may not realize it, but your phone and car are edge computing devices. Human life spaces are homes, offices, or mobile units—cars or similar. Inside a car is a metaverse scene—it’s an edge node, foundational. Your Web3 experience at home—wearing AR/VR headsets—relies on edge computing terminals. Thus, edge computing is essential in Web3, serving as the interface hub for human-machine interaction.
Third, we need distributed data networks, where data flows from multiple sources. Earlier, Zhai asked: What can better migrate from Web2 to Web3? Social is clearly one area. In fact, three sectors stand out. Last year, we invested in over 40 projects across social, e-commerce, and gaming. It’s intuitive: Games revolve around data interaction—the UI is just the front layer; backend is all data. E-commerce is data interaction too. On Taobao, what users and merchants see is curated data interaction. Why must e-commerce migrate to Web3? Otherwise, you’re held hostage by platforms. Users may not realize they’re enslaved—what they see is dictated by platforms, not self-discovered.
Thus, social, e-commerce, and gaming all have vast potential in Web3 because they have inherent problems—pain points affecting users. These are Web3’s entry points in these fields. Especially in social, many applications exist. Zhai’s virtual character idea is one. In traditional Web2, data interaction value serves specific parties—advertisers, for instance. Ads on Weibo or Twitter are pushed based on your data.
In Web3 social, with good algorithms, users benefit first and can choose to avoid unwanted content—that’s the key. Without choice, users lack rights to select preferences—true freedom doesn’t exist.
A relatable example: If you have ¥1 million in a bank and try to withdraw it all, you can’t. The bank asks: Who are you? What’s it for? Why withdraw? That’s not freedom. We must liberate ourselves, set high standards, to break free from ivory towers and discover our ceilings. An extreme case: Why go to Mars? Earth is the ceiling—I reject it, I go to Mars. Only by setting high standards can we pursue infinite possibilities. Back to Zhai’s question: Social, e-commerce, and gaming indeed offer massive data interaction in Web3, capable of generating value.
During the Q&A, Richard Wang answered audience questions:
Q: What risks and challenges will Web3.0 face? Is it a genuine trend or just hype?
Richard Wang: As I mentioned, Web3 emerged from ongoing exchanges among U.S. institutions and startups—so yes, it’s both a trend and hype. But trends have pros and cons; hype is necessary and inevitable. This isn’t unique to Web3. Three years ago, China promoted semiconductor chip design; two years ago, healthcare. Trends and hype are essential in any economy to attract capital and entrepreneurs. It’s not negative—it’s necessary. The key is whether it sustains momentum or produces quality companies.
Looking back, the 2000 internet bubble was real. Massive capital flooded in, countless startups launched—90% failed, 90% of capital lost. Yet the remaining 10% built today’s Web2 giants—Amazon, Facebook—whose impact we enjoy in lifestyle and internet experience.
Now we push further—why criticize Web2 and transition to Web3? Because society must progress, human civilization must advance. Without the 2000 internet bubble, perhaps no Tencent, Facebook, or Amazon—progress would slow or stall. Thus, trends and hype are both inevitable and essential. The real question is: Which investors and entrepreneurs can elevate companies to the next stage? Who possesses the foresight—the wisdom to identify true potential—and stick with them? That’s the crux. Not whether it’s a trend or hype—if you dislike it, it’s still necessary. I view it positively—as a constructive, progressive manifestation.
Q: Professor Wang, what are the top three visible Web3.0赛道 in Silicon Valley currently? Could you introduce them?
Richard Wang: First, U.S. startups definitely have an edge in Web3—more talent and fertile ground for Web3 projects to grow. I can’t rank a definitive top three, but let me illustrate technically. Decentralized storage, for instance—is vital. Storage is fundamental. Without it, life halts. No phone storage? Two photos fill it—device dead. No computer storage? Impossible. No brain storage? Something wrong with the person.
Storage matters. But where? China Mobile servers? Amazon? Huawei? All carry risks and high costs. Storage is a Web3 cornerstone. Recall the three Web3 foundations I mentioned—AI, Edge Computing, distributed data networks. But Web3 infrastructure includes decentralized storage, communication, computing power—these are bedrock. So decentralized storage is a Web3 cornerstone—that’s the premise. Storage is indispensable. A breakthrough distributed storage solution could spawn a great company. Over recent years, we’ve seen attempts—none perfect, all flawed. But better solutions will emerge—they must. When perfected, storing photos, info, videos will be effortless—easy in, easy out.
Many current solutions allow easy storage but difficult retrieval; some store images but not videos. Imperfect. I believe a great company will emerge here. Another example: decentralized communication. May seem off-topic, but such projects exist in the U.S. Communication is critical. What if carriers act maliciously? Say your bill is ¥500, carrier charges ¥600—in a centralized system, you comply. Or if the carrier collapses—your number vanishes, unprovable as yours. Decentralized communication prevents this. It won’t happen in China, but may in the U.S., South America, Africa.
Why are carriers centralized? First, frequency bands belong to governments—licenses cost heavily, requiring capital. Second, base stations are expensive—only centralized operators can afford them. But can 10,000 people form a decentralized operator? Yes. Each spends ¥100,000 on a base station—10,000 stations across Shanghai. The decentralized operator is these 10,000 people. How do they profit? Same way China Mobile does—simple. Mind-blowing? Sure. But nothing is impossible.
Q: Many debate whether Web3 is a false premise or just a matter of time. Either way, in which scenarios will it achieve mass adoption? And how long might that take?
Richard Wang: Complete decentralization may not be necessary—not everything requires it. A compromise exists: key nodes act as validators. Full decentralization isn’t mandatory—some cases suit weak centralization. It depends on application and user needs. Second, Web3 encompasses many domains likely to ferment first—social, e-commerce, gaming—as previously discussed.
Gaming is relatively mature. Timing-wise, this year already sees somewhat Web3-oriented game projects—where development engines are open-source, enabling diverse creators to build games without central control. This embodies a basic Web3 concept. Even technically, NFT mechanisms can link games developed by Team A and Team B for cross-play.
Previously unthinkable—same engine, plus middleware defining protocols, akin to 3G standards (WCDMA, CDMA2000, TD-SCDMA). Despite different protocols, calls connect—cross-platform interoperability, already emerging in gaming. Whether it delivers commercial value remains undetermined, but it’s happening. I believe e-commerce and social will follow next year. In Southeast Asia and Africa, we already see it—lacking monopolistic giants, innovative firms adopt Web3 concepts for e-commerce platforms.
My earlier example holds: Amazon and Taobao each have strengths and weaknesses. Platforms inherently seek control, showing only what they wish. Web3 concepts better align manufacturers and users, shifting from centralized to weakly centralized models. Social too—especially Zhai’s SocialFi-related work. Social isn’t just Fi—every aspect of life involves transactions. Anything social and financial can advance significantly. However, SocialFi Web3 projects won’t be visible until next year or the year after—they’re broader in scope, involving privacy. Domestic personal data protection laws introduced last year require lengthy compliance periods. To meet regulations, SocialFi projects need extended operational adjustments.
Recently, we’ve seen interesting insurance-related projects—insurance being a form of SocialFi. Why? Insurance is social security—thus social. Is it financial? Of course—premiums paid, claims received—wealth and finance involved. Definitely Fi. Does it face regulatory constraints? Naturally—the insurance regulator. Does it involve personal privacy? Absolutely. Which hospital did you visit? What illness? Patients don’t want insurers knowing—but currently must disclose due to lack of privacy protection. Add a privacy layer: Insurers only learn “should pay or not”—no need to know the illness. Via a black box combining AI and privacy tech, insurers determine payout eligibility and amount—without accessing medical details. Such applications will emerge across Web3 domains, tied to societal progress. Without robust regulations, these projects can’t thrive—they’d operate in legal gray zones, unable to achieve universal value or commercial viability.
Q: What differs between overseas and domestic Web3 landscapes?
Richard Wang: I traveled abroad this year—first spent a month in Taipei, then moved to our Silicon Valley HQ, staying in the U.S. over two months, visiting Austin, Miami, engaging with various U.S.-based startups. I felt distinctly that many U.S. startups benefit from open-mindedness and expansive thinking. Second, talent isn’t limited to Silicon Valley—Boston has plenty too. Overall, the U.S. leads globally, though China
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
