Will web3 solve the problem of wealth accumulating at the top?

Normally, those in management positions (founders, VCs, CXOs) get rich while most of the actual-work and thought-work doers struggle to meet their financial needs.

Can web3 decentralisation help employees accumulate wealth in right proportion to the work that they do?

If you feel that it can, how?

If you feel that it can't, why? What are the challenges?

I do not think that web3 would have any of the aforementioned effects at all. The structure of the web has nothing to do with wealth distribution.

@iiii Web3 could be enabler. There can be smart contracts with a voting system where stakeholders rate each other's role on how critical or revenue impacting each project could be. Then within the project teams will rate each other based on their role in the project. Within a team, individuals will rate each other. To keep internal-biases at bay, there can be external organisations to implement this system and audit projects on a regular basis.

Complex, but i see this happening. Because the perks for individual employees in this system are way more than the challenges I can foresee (mostly implementation/execution).

Bosses should definitely earn the royalty for taking up the initiative to launch a business, but that doesn't give them the license to become $200Bn strong while none of the employees are even 1Bn strong.

Balance should be there.

@theKarlisK definitely not. But It can be enabler of a profit sharing model across the organisation, enabler of transparency,.. and so on!

@codepoetn the real world with companies and marketing won't go away anyway.

Your assumption has a huge amount of real world "ifs" that shall be assumed for your idea to work. Hence it won't.

@iiii So, are you saying it would fail because of "implementation" and/or "adoption/acceptance" challenges?

Wealth attracts more wealth, that's the nature of the power it represents and no amount of technology will fix it. The solution is self-organization, and web2 is just as fit for that purpose as web3. In fact, it's probably better because web2 is efficient and very cheap to operate unless you have very high uptime needs whereas web3 is far too expensive for the working class.

@codepoetn it would fail because blockchainification of the web does not translate to distribution of wealth at all. It's a yet another buzzword wishful thinking.

No proof-of-work system can ever solve this issue because wealth can purchase work. If we want automatic consent, it has to be based on personal trust. The moment an unidentified agent (of group) can state and verify a fact through some resource that can be traded the system is rigged for wealth.

Another thing: as a white collar and an engineer, your goals vaguely align with the working class but your means definitely don't, so keep that in mind when you invent solutions for all of us.

Have you looked at the protocols? Proof of work and proof of stake are both basically "if you've already got money, we'll give you more". W3 is fundamentally BUILT on the rich getting richer...

@codepoetn Every single one of the possible "good" points are already possible, even without the block chain / web3.

@theKarlisK Excellent points, technology can underpin any system of power among those who can afford the technology.

nothing will solve the problem of wealth accumulating at the top. except taking down the top.

@tosensei which works only temporarily

@iiii well, just like a hedge, you need to keep trimming.