Web3 的真正價值：你可以帶著你的玩具離開

與 Roblox 等應用程式不同，加密貨幣賦予用戶財產權

The True Value of Web3: You Can Take Your Toys and Leave

Web3 的真正價值：你可以帶著你的玩具離開

Unlike applications like Roblox, crypto gives users property rights

與 Roblox 等應用程式不同，加密貨幣賦予用戶財產權

10 Years of Decentralizing the Future

去中心化未來十年

Until recently, when users landed on the Roblox website, they were greeted with a proposition: Earn Serious Cash. It seemed straightforward enough. Sign up, create digital goods and build virtual experiences to sell to other players, and get rich. But as many millions of hopefuls have learned, it’s actually really hard to make money as a Roblox developer. So hard, in fact, that a mob of angry parents slapped the company with a class action lawsuit calling out its exploitative fee structures that prey on the platform’s player base, of which half are purportedly aged 13 or under. And while critics focus a lot on Roblox’s low payouts and high commission thresholds, the bigger problem is that creators can’t get off the platform when they’ve had enough of its shit.

直到最近，當用戶登陸 Roblox 網站時，他們收到的建議是：賺取大量現金。這看起來很簡單。註冊、創建數位商品並建立虛擬體驗以出售給其他玩家並致富。但正如數以百萬計的希望者所了解的那樣，作為 Roblox 開發者實際上很難賺錢。事實上，如此嚴厲，以至於一群憤怒的家長向該公司提起集體訴訟，指責其剝削性收費結構掠奪該平台的玩家群，據稱其中一半年齡在 13 歲或以下。儘管批評者主要關注 Roblox 的低支出和高佣金門檻，但更大的問題是，當創作者受夠了這個平台的垃圾時，他們無法離開平台。

Note: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc. or its owners and affiliates.

註：本專欄所表達的觀點僅代表作者的觀點，不一定反映 CoinDesk, Inc. 或其所有者和關聯公司的觀點。

Almost everything in Roblox exists because a player created it, and yet those creators have little to no rights to their crop. While creators do retain ownership of their user-generated content (UGC), they also grant Roblox a comprehensive, royalty-free license to use, modify, publicly perform and distribute that content globally. Even if a creator leaves, Roblox retains rights to all content created on its platform indefinitely. This limits creators' potential earnings and control over their IP, and prevents competitors from competing, since it’s impossible for Roblox creators to port their work over to a new platform.

Roblox 中幾乎所有東西的存在都是因為玩家創造了它，但這些創造者對其作物幾乎沒有任何權利。雖然創作者確實保留其用戶生成內容 (UGC) 的所有權，但他們也授予 Roblox 全面的免版稅許可，以在全球範圍內使用、修改、公開執行和分發該內容。即使創作者離開，Roblox 仍無限期保留在其平台上創建的所有內容的權利。這限制了創作者的潛在收入和對其智慧財產權的控制，並阻止競爭對手競爭，因為 Roblox 創作者不可能將他們的作品移植到新平台。

Roblox, in short, is kind of like Hotel California. Creators can log out any time they like, but they can never really leave.

簡而言之，Roblox 有點像《加州旅館》。創作者可以隨時退出，但他們永遠無法真正離開。

This is why Web3 people are always banging on about the importance of digital property rights. Without property rights on the internet, users become shackled to the Web2 platforms that amass them. When everything they’ve created and achieved, and even the community to which they belong, is owned by the platform, it’s not as simple as just picking up, moving on, and starting anew. In fact, the more value the creator creates on Roblox, the harder it gets for them to leave. It is a poignant example of the injustices of centralization online and the need for a more equitable internet that affords all users the right to take their shit and leave, if they want.

這就是為什麼 Web3 人總是大肆宣揚數位產權的重要性。如果網路上沒有產權，使用者就會受到聚集他們的 Web2 平台的束縛。當他們創造和取得的一切，甚至他們所屬的社群都歸平台所有時，事情就不再簡單地拾起、繼續前進、重新開始那麼簡單了。事實上，創作者在 Roblox 上創造的價值越多，他們就越難離開。這是一個令人心酸的例子，說明了網路中心化的不公正性，以及對更公平的網路的需求，讓所有用戶都有權利離開，如果他們願意的話。

This has always been blockchain’s selling proposition. Be Your Own Bank, Not Your Keys/Not Your Crypto, and so on. These early slogans were highly financialized, since blockchain’s breakthrough feature was digital cash that allowed people to take self sovereign custody of their money. But the crux of the movement has always been about having ownership rights for your property online, so that you – and only you – can decide what to do with it. It started with banks, now we’re looking at internet platforms like Roblox. Be it money, personal information, or an avatar’s hat in the shape of an emoji poo, the Web3 vision is that those assets should be user-owned and controlled.

這一直是區塊鏈的賣點。成為你自己的銀行，而不是你的鑰匙/不是你的加密貨幣，等等。這些早期的口號是高度金融化的，因為區塊鏈的突破性特徵是數位現金，它允許人們對自己的資金進行自我主權託管。但這場運動的關鍵始終是擁有線上財產的所有權，以便您（而且只有您）可以決定如何處理它。首先是銀行，現在我們正在考慮像 Roblox 這樣的網路平台。無論是金錢、個人訊息，還是表情符號便便形狀的頭像帽子，Web3 的願景是這些資產應該由使用者擁有和控制。

It's an abstract concept for most internet users, who have lived most of their digital lives within Web2 environments, unaware of the benefits they might enjoy if they were set free by Web3. To be fair, Web3 hasn’t been particularly good at evidencing those benefits. To date, the rhetoric has been mostly anarchic, libertarian; as if the reason that we need to take control of our digital assets is because someone or something is out to get us.

對於大多數網路使用者來說，這是一個抽象的概念，他們的大部分數位生活都在 Web2 環境中度過，沒有意識到如果 Web3 解放了他們，他們可能會享受到的好處。公平地說，Web3 並沒有特別擅長證明這些好處。迄今為止，這些言論大多是無政府的、自由主義的。就好像我們需要控制我們的數位資產的原因是因為有人或某物想要攻擊我們一樣。

In the context of video games, Web3 advocates warn players what might happen to their beloved skin or weapon if the publisher of their favorite game bans their account or turns the game off altogether. The problem is, it’s a largely unrelatable anecdote that’s met with eyerolls by the average player. To date, we don’t have a lot of good examples to demonstrate how Web3’s openness and optionality could actually elevate the user experience beyond what we already know and love about the internet. Which is why we’ve not seen a mutiny of Roblox users demanding their digital rights.

在電玩遊戲方面，Web3 倡導者警告玩家，如果他們最喜歡的遊戲的發行商禁止他們的帳戶或完全關閉遊戲，他們心愛的皮膚或武器可能會發生什麼。問題是，這是基本上與普通玩家不相干的軼事。到目前為止，我們還沒有很多好的例子來證明 Web3 的開放性和可選性如何真正提升用戶體驗，超越我們已經了解和喜愛的互聯網。這就是為什麼我們沒有看到 Roblox 用戶叛變要求他們的數位權利。

See also: The NFT Game That Makes Cents for Filipinos During COVID

另請參閱：新冠疫情期間為菲律賓人帶來收益的 NFT 遊戲

Farcaster is one example of what a decentralized social experience could look and feel like in our fabled Web3 utopia – particularly with the recent announcement that Farcaster Channels would be brought in-protocol. Previously, Channels (like subreddits on Reddit) were only available in-app on Warpcast, the most popular Farcaster client. Now, Channels will be on-chain and sovereign just like Farcaster accounts, meaning that communities built in these Channels will be owned by their creators, and not controlled by any one platform, giving them greater flexibility over ownership and economics. This move to bring UGC on-chain underscores the difference between Web2 and Web3

Farcaster 是我們傳說中的 Web3 烏托邦中的外觀和感覺的一個例子 - 特別是最近宣布 Farcaster Channels 將被納入協議中去中心化社交體驗。此前，頻道（如 Reddit 上的 subreddits）僅在最受歡迎的 Farcaster 用戶端 Warpcast 上的應用程式內可用。現在，頻道將像Farcaster 帳戶一樣是鏈上的和主權的，這意味著在這些頻道中建立的社區將由其創建者擁有，而不是由任何一個平台控制，從而使它們在所有權和經濟方面具有更多大的靈活性。 UGC 上鍊的舉措凸顯了 Web2 和 Web3 之間的差異