I think back fondly on a discussion I had last fall with Anya, a Khmer digital artist based in Phnom Penh. As you might expect, she was over the moon! She’d just managed to sell an NFT of her detailed silk painting that, to her mind, embodied the unbreakable spirit of Cambodian women. Her joy quickly turned to frustration. Unfortunately, she needed to use a different wallet for the platform. It wasn’t compatible with the Web3 game that she wanted to spend her earnings in. Transaction fees gobbled up her profits and the entire experience was clunky, disjointed and frustrating. This, she lamented, was a far cry from the revolutionary future and felt more like a jumbled puzzle.
Arthur Madrid’s vision of a universal wallet that could support every Web3 game really captured imaginations at our Crypto Polo event in Dubai. Indeed, that’s precisely the reason why it sounds so good at first blush. Picture this, one master key to open all the metaverse’s doors. Before we raise a glass to these accomplishments, shouldn’t we be asking cui bono, or who benefits? Who really benefits from this "obvious" vision?
Convenience At What Decentralization Cost?
The promise of seamless interoperability is seductive. Gone will be the days of juggling multiple wallets, gone will be the days of high gas fees bridging assets between each chain. Let's not mistake convenience for empowerment. A single wallet, however, in practice, becomes a single point of failure. A single point of control.
Think about it. If your Web3 gaming experience is wholly controlled by The Sandbox or another centralized gatekeeper, you could find yourself suddenly disrupted. Imagine the day when they decide to change the rules. What do you do if your account gets unjustly flagged, as can happen? What happens if their database is breached? Now, one company has unprecedented power over every aspect of your digital identity. All your hard-earned NFTs and access to metaverses are at stake.
This isn't just theoretical fear-mongering. We’ve experienced firsthand as these centralized platforms censor, de-platform, and change their terms of service at a moment’s notice. What guarantees do we have that a non-centralized Web3 wallet provider wouldn’t replicate the same? Particularly to people in developing countries, who do not have access to legal remedies against its pervasive reach, such as Anya.
Forgotten Voices, Centralized Power?
Madrid’s vision, even though it sounds like the answer, could end up recreating the same centralized power structures that Web3 promised to overthrow. It insidiously wrests more control from the user and puts it in the hands of the platform. This trend is deeply troubling for artists and consumers across Southeast Asia. As it is, they are already struggling amid a challenging environment of technology adoption, regulatory confusion and a general lack of access to capital.
How does the single wallet vision as articulated by the big players meet the unique needs of these communities. Is it really building for the wide spectrum of internet access, digital literacy, and trust in centralized institutions? Or does it just slap a blanket “solution” that ends up serving the platform itself more than the people using it? Web3 first captured imaginations with its potential for true decentralization. It was designed to put the power back into the hands of the end users. As soon as you put convenience ahead of safety, you have to question that very basic tenet.
Decentralized Identity, Viable Alternatives?
Rather than pursuing a centralized solution down the “obvious” path of a single federal wallet, don’t we owe it to ourselves and taxpayers to look at innovative decentralized approaches? Solutions that give users more control over their data and assets? Decentralized Identity (DID) protocols give you back the power to control your identity on any platform. No more putting all your eggs in one centralized national provider basket. Multi-signature wallets allow users to set up transaction approval across multiple wallets/stakeholders, providing an additional layer of security and eliminating single points of failure.
These are admittedly more difficult solutions to implement, but they are better matched to the premise and values that underlie Web3. They prioritize user empowerment, decentralization, and resilience. Industry leaders on the Tech Accord call this true interoperability a bit more than just convenience. It’s a means to an equitable, inclusive digital future.
The Sandbox’s quest for broader Web3 gaming interoperability and collaboration is certainly admirable. We shouldn’t be seduced by the siren song of the one wallet. Let’s question the fundamental premises. We have a chance to find out, and we should fight for solutions that make the future of Web3 serve all users instead of just the centralized platforms that dominate it today. Let’s honor Anya, who couldn’t afford fee-based services and wasn’t served by a mismatch of platforms. Her story isn’t really a story of convenience, it’s a story of who Web3 is for. Is this the beginning of a more truly decentralized, empowering, and democratic future? Or is that just another version of the same old centralized system, with more bells and whistles? We should advocate for the voices of newer artists and underrepresented communities to be amplified to the utmost degree. Let’s get those voices front and center to the shaping of this new digital world!
