London's buzzing. Our new Web3 accelerator program is about to ignite a second wave of blockchain innovation. It is backed by heavyweights including Fabric Ventures, Animoca Brands, Coinbase and FoundersFactory. Seed funding, mentorship, regulatory guidance – it all sounds a lot like the golden ticket for early-stage startups. But before we uncork the champagne, let's ask a crucial question: at what cost? Are we really promoting real decentralization, or just creating a gilded cage administered by the current heavy hitters?

Innovation or Echo Chamber?

Picture this—it’s the wild west of the early internet. Garage startups, powered by clean innovation, took on and shook up massive industries. Now, picture what might have happened if only a few major corporations had held sway over the flow of capital and mentorship at that time. Otherwise, would we have the innovative markets and tools provided by the vibrant and creative web we’ve all come to appreciate? Unlikely.

If implemented well, the London program has the potential to be a real spark for transformative innovation. The degree of power that has consolidated in the hands of these four behemoths causes alarm bells to ring. How will the most truly disruptive ideas ever get noticed? These concepts are radical, status quo shattering and might directly threaten the backers’ existing investments and interests. Is the program just going to parrot what it hears? Or will it further entrench projects that align seamlessly with the corporate funding priorities we’ve allowed to dominate the agenda?

This isn't just speculation. Consider the potential conflicts of interest. Coinbase, one of the largest centralized exchanges, is a publicly traded company. Will the accelerator really support DeFi projects that would undermine its own business model? Animoca Brands, which is the most deeply invested company in blockchain gaming and the metaverse. Are projects oriented towards the more radical applications of Web3 going to be afforded this level of support?

We should be looking at the surprising ties in this case. Imagine this scenario: A brilliant team develops a truly decentralized social platform that bypasses traditional social media giants. It’s kind of revolutionary, in its way! It poses an existential threat to the current social media environment — where many of its supporters have their own vested interests. Will that in-library digital scannery project get the same eager evangelizing as a metaverse game, or will it be meekly tabled?

Decentralization's Hollow Promise?

Web3 is claimed to be focused on decentralization, permissionless innovation, and individuals controlling their own data and wealth. A launchpad controlled by a handful of huge players threatens to violate all these public interest principles. This exclusionary system tightens the spigot on funding and resources. This creates a situation where an elite few are in control of everything, ushering in a second institutional gatekeeping.

Look at the selection criteria: "Willingness to engage with compliance advisors." Regulatory compliance is very important as seen in the UK and EU. The requirement can be a major hurdle for smaller, more experimental projects. Startups and less well-resourced teams will find themselves at a disadvantage in this complicated legal environment, with larger, well-funded projects having an advantage.

This is where the anger/outrage disgust emotion comes into play. Are we truly building out a decentralized future? Or are we simply recreating the same centralized power structures of Web2 under a different guise? Is this program really about empowering innovators, or is it about consolidating the power of a few corporate giants?

Alternative Paths to True Innovation

So, what's the alternative? Instead, we should be looking for models that help foster Web3 innovation. These models need to be further decentralized, community-driven and less reliant on big corporate players.

  • DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations): Imagine funding and mentorship decisions being made by a community of token holders, rather than a select few venture capitalists.
  • Open-Source Funding Platforms: Platforms that allow anyone to contribute to promising Web3 projects, regardless of their size or location.
  • University Research Grants: Investing in academic research and development can foster truly groundbreaking innovation, free from the constraints of corporate agendas.

Italics are important here. What we do know is we need to actively find and finance these other models. We must create an environment that encourages experimentation and draws the best minds to work together in the open. After all, we wouldn’t want Web3’s future to be written by a handful of corporate behemoths. Rather, we need to inspire the most dynamic, creative, energetic, socially-motivated changemakers that might otherwise create it.

Here’s how the London accelerator can be a positive force for Web3 innovation. It’s more important than ever that we not suspend our judgment and overlook the dark side of concentrated power. We need to ask tough questions, demand transparency, and actively support alternative models that promote true decentralization and permissionless innovation. Unless something changes, London’s blockchain investment may end up benefiting just a fortunate few. It’s a disclaimer that would otherwise leave the rest of us in the dust. To be clear this is not just about innovation; it’s about the future of the internet. That's something worth fighting for.