Where is the promised land of Web3?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Where is the promised land of Web3?
Unless China and the United States suddenly experience dramatic shifts in their attitudes toward the Web3 industry, blockchain and Web3 will not find a single large market that brings together all favorable conditions as the internet and mobile internet once did.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Meng Yan
Recently I traveled halfway around the globe, visiting Accra—the capital of Ghana—Zurich, Switzerland’s largest city, Dubai—the economic gateway to the Middle East—as well as Singapore, which radiates across Southeast Asia, and Hong Kong, backed by mainland China. The main purpose was attending several industry conferences and scouting opportunities in local Web3 industries. Combined with Rwanda, which I visited last year, Australia where I’ve been living long-term, and mainland China, which I follow most closely, I now have some firsthand insights and judgments about blockchain and Web3 developments in these regions, which I’d like to share.
Dodging Bullets
First, let me clarify what I mean by “blockchain and Web3,” because every time I bring this up, there are always people jumping out asking: What is blockchain? What is Web3? How does it relate to crypto? To dodge these ambushes, let me briefly explain my position.
Here's the thing: blockchain technology has given rise to a new industry called the encrypted digital economy, or simply "crypto." Like any other industry, crypto has both real-world operations and trading components. But unlike others, since blockchain itself is an internet protocol for value transfer with built-in transaction infrastructure, crypto can express and trade assets internally without needing to go to external venues like traditional sectors do. This feature is so prominent that nearly all the attention in the first decade of the crypto industry focused on trading. However, this doesn’t mean there are no real operations—if you ask what underlying assets are being traded, they must ultimately be determined by actual business activities.
Currently, within this industry, there are three approaches toward real operations. The first is speculation and gambling—many projects today fall into this category, featuring a token upfront and nothing substantial behind it. At best, they’re memes—openly admitting they offer nothing but cultural novelty and speculative games. More malicious ones pretend to run real businesses, misleading outsiders while actually operating Ponzi schemes. The second path is “industrial blockchain” or RWA (real-world asset tokenization), linking blockchain-based digital assets to real-world operations. The third path is Web3, exemplified by Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, etc.—systems with genuine underlying applications serving as open internet infrastructure.
I’ve consistently focused on industrial blockchain and Web3, believing these represent the only sustainable long-term paths. The projects I initiate emphasize real operations—even if slower, they feel solid—and I firmly believe their long-term returns will be greater. Of course, most players I encounter in the space are traders who profit from market opportunities and pay little attention to real operations.
Both builders and traders are needed in this ecosystem. But when someone like me expresses views rooted in real operations, traders often misunderstand or even mock them. So let me clarify: I’m discussing the “real economy” segment of the crypto industry, hence my frequent use of the seemingly redundant phrase “blockchain and Web3.” As for those purely focused on trading who stubbornly insist there’s no real business in crypto—just pure gambling—I consider such shallow and ignorant opinions beneath rebuttal.
Blockchain and Web3 Within the Framework of Digitalization
Whether industrial blockchain or Web3, both should be understood within the broader context of digitalization—a continuous, millennia-spanning process in human civilization. While we usually refer to digitalization over recent decades based on digital computing and networks, its roots lie in military-industrial applications before expanding into enterprises. Later, consumer internet emerged unexpectedly, dramatically reshaping the trajectory and landscape of digitalization, creating a new paradigm.
Now, technologies like blockchain and zero-knowledge proofs may give rise to a third digitalization paradigm. On the enterprise side, this manifests as industrial blockchain and RWA; on the consumer internet side, it appears as Web3.
Why call it a new paradigm? Because blockchain redefines account systems and resource custody models on the internet—fundamentally different at the DNA level from today’s centralized internet. Thus, if it ever takes off, it won’t merely evolve—it’ll become something entirely unseen in traditional internet history.
In the digital age, no matter how small a new species may appear initially, it cannot be ignored—once matured, it could introduce a competitive dimension impossible to resist. Between industrial blockchain and Web3, I believe Web3 will arrive faster and stronger. Hence, current discussions should prioritize Web3. And to discuss Web3’s development potential across regions, we must first examine each region’s stage of digitalization.
What’s the global picture of digitalization today? In short: China and the U.S. are racing in AI and robotics; Europe and Australia are sleepless; high-growth nations in Africa and Southeast Asia are undergoing their first large-scale digital transformation; while Singapore and Dubai aim to capture the biggest share of the resulting benefits.
Below are my impressions of each region.
Sleepless Europe and Australia
Europe and Australia appear similar on the surface. Both have decent internet infrastructure but lack leading tech giants, lagging significantly behind the U.S. and China in application depth and innovation. They know about blockchain, Web3, and tokenization—they watch and care—but their attitude resembles Lord Ye’s love of dragons: supportive in principle, hesitant in practice. Push too hard, face real issues or conflicts, and progress stalls immediately. Today, both regions find themselves stuck—unable to sleep, yet unable to act. That’s why I call it insomnia.
But I think the root causes differ. Australia lacks motivation—life is too comfortable. Innovation happens casually, following the U.S. and UK. If America hasn’t cracked a technology, no rush to lead. If Britain hasn’t set regulations, then wait. Having lived in Australia for years, I know the regulatory environment is relatively relaxed, the market size manageable—there is room to move. But once you partner with locals, enthusiasm vanishes. At the first sign of difficulty, comes retreat—summed up in six words: “Too lazy. Not necessary.”
Europe is different. It desires independent development and sees blockchain’s value, but its governance structures are overly complex, bogged down by red tape. At a fintech conference in Switzerland, tokenization was the star topic. Yet every speaker followed the same script: praise blockchain’s long-term promise, then list endless constraints and limitations. Nothing is harder than a path that seems inevitable but hides unpredictable pitfalls. In my view, Europe’s situation is tough.
So both places suffer insomnia—one due to laziness, the other paralyzed by bureaucracy.
Interlocked Mainland China and Hong Kong
(This section was partially censored when published on WeChat. For full text, see my Twitter.)
China was the biggest winner of the mobile internet era and thus seemed best positioned to lead the Web3 revolution. But history repeatedly shows that winners of one cycle often fall behind in the next. Many blame path dependence—incumbent interest groups knowingly choosing conservative paths to protect existing advantages. But I believe the Chinese internet sector still possesses entrepreneurial spirit and self-renewal drive; path dependence isn't the main issue here. If anything, the problem lies more in perception.
Web3 is indeed not a typical industry—it carries strong inherent tradability and speculation, highly volatile. Poor control risks financial chaos. Currently, China is especially sensitive to instability and prioritizes stability above all. Facing Web3—the quintessential “troublesome kid”—policymakers hesitate. Moving forward risks disrupting established corporate and industrial structures, triggering disorder and increasing regulatory burden. Holding back means letting the technology evolve overseas uncontrollably, potentially spawning unknown threats that could later place China at a severe disadvantage. Thus, China finds itself torn—advance cautiously for fear of collateral damage, retreat anxiously fearing missing out.
Many believe Hong Kong, as a blockchain pilot zone, bears a special mission—to help mainland China test the waters of Web3.
Yet despite being an international financial hub, Hong Kong’s core strengths lie almost entirely in financial trading. Ask it to build real economies, and it’ll say, “I haven’t been the boss for a long time.” It failed to catch the internet wave decades ago, now struggles even with filmmaking, and expecting it to independently pioneer a new global internet paradigm exceeds its capabilities in industrial foundation, talent pool, and market scale. In practice, Hong Kong firms—regardless of lofty visions—focus solely on “trading,” because that’s their comparative advantage. This falls far short of fulfilling the role of exploring a new Web3 paradigm for the mainland.
Of course, digital asset trading is a key node in Web3. If mainland China develops a thriving Web3 industry, Hong Kong succeeding in trading alone would suffice. But currently, the mainland waits for Hong Kong to blaze a trail before advancing Web3, while Hong Kong waits for the mainland to generate digital assets to trade and earn fees. Each side waits for the other—neither can break the deadlock. This is mutual lock-up.
Big Opportunities in Southeast Asia and Africa
If China fails to break through in Web3, the two regions most likely to open new fronts and spawn transformative innovations are the U.S. and—my belief—Southeast Asia and Africa. I haven’t visited the U.S., so withhold judgment. But over recent years, frequent trips to Africa and Singapore have given me some observations.
Several Southeast Asian and African nations have entered rapid growth phases. Though their economies remain modest in size, involving hundreds of millions of people, they show immense potential and urgent demand for digital infrastructure. These countries are experiencing their first large-scale IT and internet buildouts. China went through a similar phase starting in the 1990s—we’re familiar with it. This is the golden window: initial tech adoption driven by intense curiosity, openness, sincerity, and motivation. That’s exactly where these nations stand today.
But compared to China, their foundational logic differs. When China began building IT infrastructure, it was the post-Cold War era of unstoppable globalization. So China adopted a “take what works” approach—importing American technologies and turnkey solutions—with little concern for autonomy, data sovereignty, or privacy. Only after the 2013 Snowden revelations did China start catching up, eventually forging a unique digitalization path centered on consumer internet dominated by super-platforms.
Now, fast-growing Asian and African economies need digital infrastructure—but times have changed, logics shifted. First, globalization has weakened; fierce U.S.-China competition creates space for others to benefit. Second, awareness of data sovereignty and privacy has grown—even smaller nations refuse to be naked under foreign digital prisms. Third, the success of internet platforms inspires medium-sized economies to nurture their own domestic champions—keeping value at home.
What results? The old model—where U.S. giants created ecosystems later perfected by Huawei-style Chinese firms—is now blocked or heavily resisted. Take data privacy: previously, big companies just signed user agreements, issued PR statements, then freely collected, sold, and analyzed user data—users never knew, let alone objected. Those days are over.
Now, these nations want their own platforms. Foreign firms can sell equipment, provide technology, assist construction, train talent—but direct penetration into local economic capillaries? No unconditional integration into your network as a provincial sub-node? Sorry, we understand—that’s digital colonialism. We’re not that naive anymore.
But here’s the problem: the internet thrives on network effects. Chinese platforms serve all of China; American ones cover the world except China—only such massive scales yield strength. If every nation refuses to join larger networks and insists on sovereign platforms, you end up fragmented—tiny isolated islands, none able to grow strong, creating endless friction for cross-border collaboration.
Local visionaries recognize this. At a conference in Ghana, a South African industry leader said: Africans always talk about Africa—but where is Africa? Just a colonially fragmented continent—50+ countries, 48 currencies, internal trade negligible compared to external. He wants to build an African digital economic community. In Rwanda, I found over a dozen “Alipay-like” payment networks in a country of 13 million—each with just tens of thousands of users. Such fragmentation prevents any from scaling. Same issue exists across Southeast Asia.
This is where blockchain and Web3 shine for African and Southeast Asian digitalization. Benefits include clear ownership, tamper-proof records, consensus-building, trust transmission, value-layer integration at the protocol level allowing separate operations but unified transactions with shared benefits, and strong privacy protection via zero-knowledge proofs. Add to this their fearless early-stage experimentation and lack of entrenched interest groups, and it’s no surprise that today’s most enthusiastic and curious regions for blockchain and Web3 are concentrated in Africa and Southeast Asia.
When talking with locals, I sense genuine, earnest excitement about using Web3 to solve real problems. Elsewhere, such sincerity is rare—most only care about making money. Still, this presents a key risk: weak regulatory capacity means missteps could trigger sudden backlash. Fortunately, past incidents have made them cautious—not easily fooled. On blockchain and Web3, they trust institutions like Singapore and the Bank for International Settlements. This gives Singapore a unique historical opportunity.
Singapore and Dubai: Both Hubs, But Very Different
Singapore clearly sees the huge opportunity in digitalization and digital economies across Southeast Asia and Africa. For years, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has launched initiatives and traveled globally promoting them. Recently, MAS proposed the “Global Layer 1 (GL1)” initiative—an international blockchain co-supported, used, and benefited from by commercial banks, financial institutions, and enterprises—best reflecting Singapore’s strategic intent in blockchain and Web3.
Anyone can see that Singapore’s blockchain and Web3 strategy isn’t aimed at its domestic market, nor seeks to aggressively extend services into others’ economic peripheries like big internet firms. Instead, targeting Southeast Asia, Africa, and beyond, it offers enterprises a complementary, compatible, opt-in, shared-value network alongside existing paradigms. This represents the greatest common denominator in blockchain application, aligning perfectly with developing nations’ needs. Singapore enjoys global credibility in financial regulation and fintech—seen as a model across Southeast Asia and Africa. Governments and companies alike generally accept and trust Singapore-led blockchain and Web3 initiatives, feeling less guarded. Thus, Singapore stands a real chance of pulling this off.
The implications for Singapore are profound. If it leads digitalization efforts in Southeast Asia and Africa and successfully operationalizes GL1-type cross-border digital economic blockchains, it could position itself as the capital of the Indo-Pacific digital economy.
But Singapore’s chosen path rests on a strong assumption: that blockchain and Web3 will remain hidden beneath traditional internet layers—corporate infrastructure rather than consumer-facing. Chains like GL1—so-called “open consortium chains”—are only accessible to existing institutions. Ordinary users continue using centralized internet platforms as before, isolated from blockchain. This allows Web3 deployment to proceed gradually, led by current governments and enterprises, without disrupting existing industrial structures. But what if this assumption fails? What if Web3 reaches mass adoption directly through social media or gaming? What if regular internet users begin owning one or more Web3 accounts, communicating and transacting within them? Undoubtedly, this would be Web3’s most natural form—one destined to overturn current internet industry structures and application patterns. Should this happen, Singapore would need to adjust its strategy.
By contrast, Dubai adopts a laissez-faire approach to Web3. Dubai looks futuristic, but much of it is superficial staging. Abu Dhabi holds the UAE’s real wealth. Dubai knows this, so its core competitiveness lies in advanced infrastructure, loose regulation, and relatively favorable costs—drawing massive foreign residency. Dubai has no formal industrial policy—“build nests for phoenixes, let nature take its course.” This is authentic and embedded in Dubai’s DNA. I visited its history museum, studying the city’s past. Before oil transformed national destiny, Dubai was a poor Arab state surviving on natural pearl diving. Its rulers historically maintained extremely open and friendly policies toward merchants. This policy sustained Dubai’s survival and development in the past—and remains its hope for future prosperity.
Compared to Singapore, Dubai understands Web3 far less. The Singaporean government may be the world’s most knowledgeable about blockchain and Web3. Precisely because it understands, it confidently designs strategies and actively guides industry development. But also because it understands, it says “no” to certain activities. Dubai is different. With 90% of its 3+ million population foreign-born, bringing countless trades from around the world, Dubai’s government cannot possibly understand each one. Since it doesn’t understand, it neither sets industrial policies nor provides support—but neither does it reject. Dubai thinks clearly: only through maximum relaxation can diverse talents thrive.
Under these conditions, Dubai’s advantages shine. Businesses requiring highly permissive regulation find Dubai ideal. Today, Dubai becoming the primary base for centralized crypto exchanges clearly reflects this positioning.
Dubai’s other advantage is cost. True, Dubai isn’t cheap—but relative to whom? Compared to Southeast Asia or mainland China, yes, expensive. But versus Hong Kong or Singapore, Dubai’s costs are highly competitive. Halving operational expenses compared to Singapore isn’t unrealistic. Therefore, for internationally oriented teams with large headcounts needing light-touch regulation, Dubai may be the optimal choice.
In summary, Singapore has a clear on-chain digital economy strategy, supported by aligned policies, aiming to become the international digital capital riding the high-growth wave across Asian and African nations. Dubai lacks such a strategy but wins through permissiveness and cost competitiveness.
--------------------------------------------------------
After comparing these regions, here’s my conclusion.
Unless China or the U.S. suddenly shifts stance dramatically on Web3, the industry won’t find a single dominant market combining all favorable conditions like the internet or mobile internet eras did. Therefore, Web3 teams must consider global strategy from day one. In my view, an ideal approach is to anchor in Singapore and Dubai—actively supporting Singapore’s strategic initiatives to seize market opportunities from Africa and Southeast Asia’s first-wave digitalization, while leveraging Dubai’s regulatory flexibility and cost advantages for overall optimization.
This article omits Japan, Korea, and the U.S.—a notable gap. The reason is simple: I haven’t visited them recently and thus lack grounds to comment. Fortunately, I’ll visit the U.S. later this year. If insights emerge, perhaps I’ll write a follow-up.
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
Yan Meng
