№ 02·0102 · Industry issues3 min read · Section 1 of 3
2.1 Structural fragmentation of Web3
Why does Web3 have a lot of resources, but it is still highly fragmented and inefficient.
Updated
2.1 · Core issues in the industry
The biggest problem with Web3 is not that there are no resources, but that the resources do not form a network.
Today there is no shortage of projects, capital, media, services and technology for Web3. The real problem is that these resources still exist in a fragmented, low-structured, highly dependent manner, lacking a unified collaboration, verification and settlement system.
Function of this pageDefine the primary problem to be solved by WCN
core judgmentLots of points, but weak network
Reading highlightsFour reasons for fragmentation + four consequences of inefficiency
Many resources, few systems
There are a large number of project parties, capital parties, media, exchanges, market makers, legal affairs, security teams, technical service providers, KOLs, event organizers in the industry, and there are also more and more AI tools and automation capabilities. The problem is not that the resources do not exist, but that most of these resources still exist in a fragmented, low-structured, and strongly dependent manner.
There are many "points" in the industry, but there is no strong enough "network".
An intuitive comparison: Traditional finance has infrastructure such as Bloomberg Terminal, Pitchbook, and Dealogic to structurally connect capital with projects. The core resource routing in the Web3 industry remains Telegram group chats and business card exchanges at events.
Reasons for four-layer split
Participants are scattered in different circlesProject parties, capital parties, service providers and media each have their own circles and information sources. The capital that a project can access depends on the founder's personal relationship, and the customers that a service provider can receive rely on referrals from acquaintances. Resource flows rely on individuals rather than systems.
Collaboration happens in ad-hoc channelsA lot of critical action still happens in private chats, group chats, phone calls, and ad-hoc shared documents. These methods can facilitate things, but it is difficult to form a long-term, structured, and reusable collaboration system.
Each participant works with their own standardsThe project side has its own material format, the capital side has its own screening criteria, and the service provider has its own delivery habits. Without a unified structured interface, even if resources are connected, they often only collide rather than collaborate.
Relationship network ≠ Responsibility networkWeb3 is good at building a network of relationships, but a network of relationships is not the same as a network of responsibilities. A lot of collaboration stops at "we got to know each other and talked about it", and rarely goes into "there is an owner, there is a process, there is delivery, and there is settlement".
A typical scenario: A project party met 30 investors on Token2049, exchanged business cards, and added Telegram. Three months later, less than three have actually entered the deal process, and only one may have a result - not because there are no opportunities, but because there is no system to advance the opportunities into a closed loop.
Quadruple inefficiency caused by fragmentation
It is difficult to move forward after an opportunity is discoveredWhat is really missing is not the introduction, but a system that turns the introduction into a process, and then turns the process into a result. Deal is not lacking in the first step. What is lacking is who can continue to follow, who can provide materials, and who can attract the right people.
Good resources cannot be reused by the networkAn excellent node may be very valuable, but if its ability only remains in the individual - not recorded in a structured manner, not precipitated by processes, and not amplified by agents - in the end it is the individual's ability rather than the network's ability.
The result cannot be precipitated into long-term valueCooperation is accomplished, but if there is no unified recording method, the result will only remain as "this has been done." Fuzzy memory cannot support verifiable settlement, trustworthy attribution, and continued enhancement of network effects.
Lively alternative systemWhen the system is not strong enough, what is most likely to be seen is excitement: popular narratives, active communities, high-frequency voices, and a large number of surface connections. If these cannot enter a closed loop, it will be difficult to accumulate long-term network capabilities.
WCN must start here
If the problem of resource fragmentation is not solved first, many things will not be possible later. Therefore, the first step of WCN is not to talk about the asset layer or governance layer first, but to answer:
How to organize fragmented resources into a collaborative, verifiable, and sedimentable network?
Core conclusion
Resources are not organized into networksParticipants are scattered in their own circles, and connections rely on relationships rather than systems.
Collaboration does not enter the structural levelA large number of actions stay in private chats and temporary channels, lacking workflow.
There is no unified verification method for contributionsWho did what and to what extent, there is a lack of records and proof.
Value cannot be systematically precipitatedOne-time cooperation cannot turn into long-term network assets and reputation accumulation.