Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
World Computer Talks: Key Trends Shaping dApp Development in 2025.
Recorded: April 4, 2025 Duration: 1:17:21Space Recording
Short Summary
In a dynamic discussion on the future of Web3, industry leaders explore the critical balance between centralization and decentralization, emphasizing the need for ethical practices, user-centric design, and strategic partnerships to drive growth and innovation in the crypto space.
Full Transcription
Thank you. Продолжение следует... Thank you. Спасибо. so
E aí foreign
E aí so
foreign okay um
oh um
um Thank you. Hey everyone, thanks for tuning in. We'll be starting in two minutes. Thanks. Thank you. I'm your host, Modern Mulan, Hub Ambassador of ICP Hub Philippines.
Tonight, we are diving into a super timely topic,
key trends shaping dApp development in 2025.
The goal to better understand
how centralization and decentralization
each play a role in shaping Web3.
And of course, how builders can use both to serve different needs we've got
a powerhouse lineup with us not sure if you guys can keep already but um icp hub taiwan is here
andrew uh the co-founder hello thanks for joining in jerry head of derivatives at btse is here as
well chris cfo at equilibrium Daniel, founder of Battle of Gods.
Simba, CMO of Quill Audits.
Mo Eman, founder of F-Hub Network and Only Founders.
Builder Kim, head of partnerships at Omniti.
Thank you so much.
Again, like I said, powerhouse lineup with us.
So I want to maybe hear from you guys very quickly.
Tell us who you are, what you do, and your connection to ICP.
Andrew, you here? Maybe we can start with you.
Hello guys, can you hear me?
Yes, perfectly. Hey!
Actually, Andrew is busy. So my name is Tom from Taiwan, the ICP Taiwan Hub.
So nice to meet you guys.
Thanks for joining us, Tom.
Yep.
And actually, I'm the podcaster.
I have a podcast called Web3 Unlocked.
So if you guys have interest, you can just follow me on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.
Yep.
So let's dive into the web three.
Thanks.
Love that.
Thanks, Tom.
Hi again.
Jerry, hey, wanna say hi
and tell us a little bit about yourself?
Yeah, awesome, of course.
Can you guys hear me?
Yes.
Yes, so I am Jerry.
I'm from BitZ Exchange. I am from the Department of Enterprise Solutions. So I got to know Andrew, ICP Taiwan Hub through one of the ICP side events for ETH Taipei. So I am also a co-founder of a in real life event venue. And we hosted one of ICP's's recent events and that's how I got to know
ISVP. Pretty cool. Thanks again for joining. Chris, how about you? Could you maybe introduce
yourself? I think Chris is not here yet, but I do see Battle of God. Hey Daniel, I want
to quickly say hi hi there it's always
a pleasure being around you thanks for the invitation daniel here founder for battle of
gods the flagship of frog dog games bridging digital through physical let's get it going
through physical.
Let's get it going.
Love that.
Yes.
Simba as well.
Are you here?
Want to say hi?
Not yet.
Okay.
Mo Iman, I see you.
Founder of F-Hub Network and Only Founders.
GMGM.
Well, big advocate of ICP from a while back.
So glad to be here on the space.
You know, Eliana has always been a great human being.
So I think she's the one that kind of keeps us glued and keeps us coming back for more.
Quite excited to talk on this discussion because I think I earlier was on a panel discussion
a few hours back and we were discussing on a very similar topic between where do we draw the line between centralization, decentralization.
So I'm quite excited to see and hear the questions that come up and what the roundtable today has to share.
Very cool. I mean, you had a warm upup um no so would be very interested in the things that
you'd be sharing as well um we also have kim hey want to say hi i'm jim um so glad to be here uh
thanks for the invitation as well so i'm kim so representing Omniti Network. So as a head of partnership,
so essentially we are an end player for Bitcoin DeFi.
So currently we have two main products that we built and strategically position as
like the key support as a decentralized infrastructure for Bitcoin DeFi.
So one of it is Omniti Hub.
Essentially it's a interoperability solution
for Bitcoin assets, especially runes.
So you can cross your runes assets with ICP canisters,
decentralized, fully trustless to all over 20 over chains.
And then the other one is RE which is ruins exchange
environment so it's a execution layer where you can build different kind of defy protocols on
top of it so we've set several projects that are mentionable like odin.fun liquidium which are building on top of icp as well
is actually using a similar structure with re as well so it's a very promising future that we see
that we can grow together with icp to enable more bitcoin divide to happen to unlock more liquidity. So yeah, that's what we are doing and also working hard to make it really happen.
Amazing.
All exciting stuff and I can't wait to hear
and get to know a little bit more about you
and what you guys do throughout this AMA
or throughout this episode through your answers.
But okay, let's kick things off. Maybe let's start with drawing
the line in the sand. We hear these terms tossed around all the time, but what do they actually
mean, right? So maybe we can start with what are the key differences between centralized and decentralized Web3 solutions and what problems does each solve
best? Mo, you mentioned you came in from a discussion about this. So maybe we can start
with you and you can share your perspective as a founder across different models.
I love that. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. So earlier today, we were
discussing exactly the same topic about where do we draw the line? What's centralization to someone
and what's decentralization? And I think over the last few years, we all started in the space with
the right intention. However, over time, because a lot of the founders who enter the space with the right intention however over time because a lot of the founders who
enter the space with good intentions but somehow get corrupted because of we see money and
association uh forget why we were here and the purpose of a blockchain is decentralization
fractional ownership privacy trustless and permissionless. However, we've realized that when we have introduced and built products around that,
simply put, let's say if you want to even onboard someone from non-Web3 environment onto Web3,
the steps that it takes the person to get onboarded, which is set up your wallet,
remember you see phrases, connect to a onboarded, which is set up your wallet, remember your seed phrases, connect to a certain
chain, chain your token from one chain to another chain, have gas fees on the wallet that can pay
for that transaction. People complain about this. We talk about it by saying Web3 has too much
friction, but that is the price that we agreed to pay to own our data and own our privacy.
Because if we had a seamless way to do that, then we would be centralized, right?
And then comes the next big question is, so where do we draw the line?
In SAND, I think because in SAND, we can draw the line wherever we want to.
can draw the line wherever we want to.
We could approach it from two perspectives.
One is make it seamless and centralized to a certain extent
that we can make crypto and Web3 accessible to all.
And once you have enough attention with a lower churn rate,
we then start making it more decentralized
through education, empowerment, workshops,
and ongoing spaces such as this that we're hosting through ICP.
Yeah, very interesting and strong points there.
Before I add to them, I would love to hear about Jerry's perspective on this from, you know, with your experience in working at a centralized exchange.
with your experience in working at a centralized exchange,
maybe you could enlighten us
with regards to the strengths of centralization.
Yep, thanks again for inviting me to this space.
So coming from working at a centralized exchange,
there are trade-offs being a centralized entity
and also trade-offs being a decentralized entity.
I don't think a clear line in the sand needs to be drawn.
I believe that the future of Web3
is kind of like a hybrid hybridization of both.
Because there's there are certain use cases that centralized solutions are just
more efficient and more scalable for certain use cases.
But there are also like Mo previously said, certain use cases, for example,
when you want to do things in a trustless way, a centralized solution will just not be the best
case for that use case. And so I believe that it really depends on the target audience and the users.
So I see I'm personally, although I work in a centralized exchange, I'm a personal, I'm
personally a big user of, you know, decentralized applications and I'm a big participant in the DeFi space as well.
So I do believe in the future,
those who kind of like utilize both centralized solutions and decentralized solutions will be the ones that,
you know, benefit the most from the whole Web3 experience.
Yeah, I agree.
I mean, you said it best.
We have to find a way to...
It should be a hybrid solution, right?
It's not like a one-size-fits-all type of thing as well.
How about you, Tong?
From a protocol perspective,
what do you think is decentralization's purpose?
Okay.
As you guys know, the biggest difference is about who controls the system and who you have to trust.
I think in centralized web 3, a company or a small team controls the servers, data or tools.
That makes things faster to build and easier to manage. But also means there are single points of failure.
If that team goes down or changes the rules, your app can maybe start working.
So the decentralized web 3.0, like what ICP offers, removes the central control apps run down a network of independent nodes not on
Amazon or Google such as the Magnificat 7 that means no one can shut it down or
change how it works behind their scenes so and what does each do best centralized
system for me are good for like early stage projects,
fast interaction or low latency apps like games. Decentralized system I think
is more better or more fitable for what you want to go for long-term trust,
resistance to censorship or user ownership.
So I think ICP takes this even further by letting developers run both the back end and front end,
filling on chain, so the app is truly Web3, not just like crypto on website. The result is more freedom for users and more security
for the projects that want to build without outside control. So this is what
I think. Thank you. I mean super insightful points there from all three
of our speakers. So what I'm hearing is that centralization often shines when it comes
to speed, smoother onboarding, and basically decision-making agility. On the flip side,
decentralization offers transparency, community control even, and some censorship resistance,
which are very much core to the Web3 vision.
And it's clear that both models solve very different problems,
and the real magic happens when builders understand as well
which model fits their goals.
And as we've tackled, there are trade-offs,
and the future would be the hybridization of both.
And I think we're able to achieve this with what Mo said
by us not getting distracted with all the new metas.
Yeah, and just stay true to that goal and identify those pain points.
Okay, yeah, very interesting points for our first three speakers.
Now let's go a little deeper. Because knowing the pros and cons is one thing, but choosing the right model for your product is another.
Daniel, maybe you could share with us your POV as a builder.
DOV as a builder, do you think full decentralization can work for every use case?
Or are there situations where centralization is necessary?
Okay, that's a very nice question.
Let me just say it before I forget.
Whatever Mo says in this talk, I agree with him 100%.
And I will do my best to disagree
so that we make this conversation interesting you were saying something about drawing the line in
the sand um this is my take Moulin there's no there's no need to draw lines okay we need to
have labelings to navigate but the moment that we put a line we're already
making a mistake because maybe it's going to get some part correct and the other part not so correct
and this is going to be very different depending on which side you are what I want to put here as
the discussion is blurring the lines destroying the gatekeeping is always positive, but it has its problems.
Okay.
ICP as a technology, they're one of the good guys.
Why?
Because they blur the boundaries of one blockchain to the other.
And that's the kind of tech that we built within our game architecture and mindset.
we built within our game architecture and mindset but keep in mind that from the builder perspective
is very different than from the user perspective okay so and mo said it very nicely and i will
have to agree absolutely like i said before users are the ones who are going to be
Like I said before, users are the ones who are going to be judging if a system is good
or not.
Whatever we say is right or not, it's really not up to us to do that validation.
We must make sure that the process of onboarding thousands or hundreds of wallets people can have.
But someone who's never heard about blockchain, they can get confused.
So as this is a process of, you know, like getting connected to the internet in the 90s,
I think people will be born already with this.
And then it becomes like a second nature.
And then there's no need to really know which blockchain or why.
But in the process, in this wild, wild west that we're still on, we're going to make mistakes.
But that's how we improve, by seeing what needs to be figured out and what's the best solution.
Our take on gaming is very simple.
Make sure that the user doesn't know
it's blockchain or not i can get into more details later on but from the the rest of the industry or
the other areas of industry maybe they have a different take on it but from the builder's side
it's always different than from the user side i think it's the user's going to say this is how
it's going to be because they'll be they'll be the ones consuming what we're building
and we need to get that input as much as possible.
I love that.
I mean, yeah, you're absolutely right.
We don't need to draw a line.
We just put these labels so that, you know,
we're able to identify, we're able to, yeah,
just describe them and know what they are um and
that really struck me what you said like um to make sure the user doesn't know if it's blockchain
or not because honestly we use technology now that we don't completely understand we just know
that it works this is a i always always use this example it's like we use credit cards i don't know
what happens after i swipe it
after i tap it right i just know it works and it makes my life easier and so um yeah we uh that's
the kind of approach that we have to take for for when we're building and when we're using blockchain
yes mo go ahead I appreciate what you just shared and because we don't even need to go so far. So here's
something that I tweeted about earlier today. Someone spoke about marketing in Web3 and I was
like, I don't understand why people still have to connect a product or a solution for a problem to a chain right rather
than communicating it very simply what the outcome or the experience that the end user feels um we're
on an x basis it's a platform that's centrally owned by someone and yet none of us questions
by someone and yet none of us questions how this platform works, what technology does
it use and what's the underlying infra.
We use it because it's easily accessible.
It gets us to reach an audience that we want to cater to.
It helps us position ourselves as a thought leader, create debates, create conversations, and potentially be able to become a part of a
funnel, whether that's top of the funnel, middle of the funnel, or bottom of the
funnel, on a conversion for an action. And that action is more users, better user
experience, better way of getting feedback and improving the product or the
service. Unfortunately, in Web3, we keep debating how important or relevant,
for example, decentralized is.
And I think over here, to answer that in a way,
every startup founder should have a very fluid approach
to how much of their business should be centralized
and what parts of their business should be centralized and what parts of their business
should be decentralized. And that should be revisited regularly, the same way you would
revisit your go-to-market strategy, the same way you would revisit your tokenomics, the same way
you would revisit how you do customer acquisition, customer retention, and how do you decrease your churn rate.
That's very interesting.
A fluid approach and revisiting that strategy regularly.
That makes perfect sense.
Yeah, how about you, Chris?
You are an expert in operational, financial decision-making.
I'm curious about your input in all of this. I think he logged off or might have fallen
off. But yeah, once he's back, we'll ask him the same question. Just pretend you didn't hear me
ask that. Okay. So yeah, I love how real and grounded the takes were.
It sounds to me like full decentralization is more of a spectrum than a one-size-fits-all solution.
I think some builders emphasize the need to shift fast and meet compliance as well whenever I interview them,
the need to shift fast and meet compliance as well whenever I interview them,
which leans more of the centralized side of things.
While some points were also mentioned that kind of reminded me that decentralization
is also this long-term goal that needs to evolve over time.
So I just want to highlight a couple of things that Daniel mentioned where,
you know, again, we don't have to draw the line we just need labels to identify um but yeah the the goal really is for
the user to um like there's no need for them to know if it's blockchain or not as long as it works
and mo said from you know a builder perspective as. It should be a strategy where you rethink, retest, revisit regularly.
All right.
Now, I guess it's time for us to maybe shift a little bit of focus
from the back end to the front lines, the users.
So at the end of the day, you know, they shape the future too.
Without users, no matter how great your product is,
if no one is using it, that's crap, right?
So, yeah, Kim, I'm curious.
It's in your name, BuilderKim.
You must have dealt with a lot of user onboarding as well
and partnerships.
So could you maybe share with us what role does user preference play
in shaping the future of Web3 infrastructure?
Thanks.
Definitely.
I think, first of all, I do very agree with what Mo has mentioned about
and also BeGots, especially when we talked about user experience
for any kind of apps or any kind of products that we shipped up for users.
Sometimes we may forget about that.
We are actually serving a group of people
who in needs of certain services or products
that can actually like resolve the pinpoints
or fulfill their needs.
For example, for us, we fulfill the needs of decentralization needs of a bunch of people
where they want to depend on the security consensus of Bitcoin, Leo Wan,
while able to swap or stake the liquidity of their Bitcoin as the experience of like Uniswap.
So in order to let that happen, so usually there will be a lot of options that they have.
Most of them are like more centralized options.
of them are like sent more centralized options so centralized options comes with a risk of custodian
risk where they may need to cross the bitcoin over to uh other chain or lose their custodian to
to other uh custodian wallets of the bridges for example. So that may make them concerned about the security of the Bitcoin.
So for us, we provide a fully decentralized solution with ICP, of course.
So everything is on chain and then they have their full custody of their Bitcoin as well.
And with that, still able to trade swap like the experience of like Uniswap so I think in all
to all for us is like we need to understand what our users or our target audience is so to to form
a like a profile of avatar what kind of needs or what kind of characteristic
that they have.
And then to really understand what their needs is,
and then to just ship out whatever products
that is in their liking.
So I think that's essentially how we move around as a very lean and agile startup for Omniti itself.
So yeah, that's our experience in onboarding users so far.
Very cool.
I mean, I always love hearing stories on the ground because it's so different when, you know, we always have these theories, but usually those strategies,
those theories are tested in web too, right?
So hearing web theory stories of how you have to be creative and push through
and use this tech, and again, you have to be creative.
I just love hearing web theory stories.
Thanks so much for for sharing um yes daniel you are actually next i was gonna call on you um you're building something so difficult i
mean i think games they look easy they look fun but they sound like a if you really think about
it it sounds like a such a pain to build a game, right? I mean, you really have to know user gamer behavior.
And you have to be a madman to do that, right?
And that you are.
The madman, I will have to, let's assume that by default.
Yeah, that you are.
It's an axiom. It's not under discussion. It's a fact.
It's an axiom.
It's not under discussion.
It's a fact.
Yes.
Yes.
Given fact.
Well, Mad Men aside, I think everybody is looking for the same things.
Look, we're humans. We want to have fun. We want to have this. We want to have that.
And then when we get used to certain forms of entertainment, we want to see everywhere we go we want a facilitation we
we want easy access and and i'm not going to talk about the the the big advantages of blockchain
because it's more than known it's it's a waste of energy and time but what i can tell you is that
we need to make sure that in the games that we do i'm'm going to just put a slogan that I hate.
Our games need to be fun, right?
Make games fun.
Who knew, right?
Yes.
Wow.
Amazing.
But here's the thing.
Mo is quite fun in his own way, but I think I'm more fun than him.
But maybe he disagrees.
So because it's all relative, what is fun for one
person might not be fun at all for someone else. So what we figured out is, yes, I want to make this
the game that I always wanted to play. It's about ownership, content, mythologies, please visit,
blah, blah, blah. But I want to add this. I'm also expecting, because I have ownership attached by default to what we're doing since day zero,
but do I need to have a decentralized SMS sending system?
So how do we sort out problems like the game being fun?
We don't consider that as part of the equation, okay?
One we need to make sure is that the users are real.
And you know that this is a big plague nowadays.
Our users need to be verified.
So we use the basic, I don't want to say Web2 mechanisms, but it's exactly what it is
to get the user verification via OTP code.
And then another problem that we have with Web3 is that we're getting users or gamers or, well, the people who navigate
in this industry to giving them free stuff. Either it's token or NFT, right? If we don't give free
stuff, then they will not play your game and then your game is not fun anymore and they hate you
or they go to the next game. So how do we fix that?
Well, we don't focus on relayed,
relayed acquiring of relayed satisfaction.
What we do is this.
You play our game, either it's fun or not.
We give you some sort of discount for you to buy
whatever you want so we came out with the solution of sorting the problem of people's attention and
we sort the problem of people's retention by activating and this is going to go live
this this month in india people play a mini game within our game, burst some bubbles. And with those 12 bubbles that
you burst, you get vouchers. You get vouchers for the things that you already know, like Uber or
Amazon or SMS credits. It doesn't matter what it is because you need to somehow have a bridge on
a place that people know and are used to it and bring them to this side, okay?
To ownership, to authenticity, to all the good things and the bad things, of course, that Web3 has to bring.
So making sure that doing a game is crucial, but then again, not so crucial.
is crucial, but then again, not so crucial.
You need to bridge to mechanisms and emotional reactions
that people already get used to
by downloading things on Google Play,
by using their mobile to play games,
by getting OTP verification,
and introduce something different.
So I think for us, the key is do a blend
in which we go with what people are used to already and introduce something new.
And then when they get it, it becomes second nature.
And then it's it.
And then it becomes a standard.
And then we need to move to the next big thing that will be coming, web four or five or whatever number people want to add.
So I hope I give you an interesting answer that you can pick up and take to different directions.
But key point is doing games, yes, fun, sure, it doesn't matter.
What matters is why will people return to your services or games?
Because there's something to be gained.
Either you're giving it directly or is it something they don't want that they don't need.
But if you give something that they need as a form of discounts,
that's the solution that we found.
Giving people discounts on vouchers,
on things that they already want to buy,
so they'll be happy about it.
They'll be coming, playing every day,
and they'll say, hey, this game is actually fun.
And then they'll discover us, and that's our trick.
But don't tell anybody, okay?
I won't, I swear.
It's just you and I talking anyway no um thank you so
much for sharing your thoughts um what i heard from all of that is uh basically you have a
strategy test it out and then listen to the community you check out what they respond to
what they don't and then adjust from there it's like an ongoing science experiment of sorts
and you know in web 3 we love that it's fun
it's it's challenging and we're never ones to back down on the challenge anyway right um yeah
thank you so much for sharing those insights and they're so valuable to me because again um these
are things you guys have tested out and um i feel so grateful that you did gatekeep that and you shared it tonight with the community.
So speaking of user trade-offs, maybe we can now talk about how teams actually decide their structure.
Like what drives the choice between buildings centralized or decentralized?
I think we have great builders here, Chris, Mo, Iman, and
Builder Kim. I would love to hear from you three.
How do Web3 businesses decide whether to lean more towards
centralization or decentralization? Maybe we can start with you, Chris.
Okay,
he is missing still um mo go ahead
uh i love that question um so here's a question i asked and you've been in the space for a while
i'm guessing right so you come across multiple pitch decks yes that's with the problem, goes to the solution, goes to the USP, goes to the market opportunity.
That's my favorite slide when I talk to founders.
Like our favorite slide is the point where we get to market opportunity.
So a bit of backstory.
We are a founders community, chain agnostic, vertical agnostic.
And we're building the industry first permissionless fundraising platform.
What this translates to, and I apologize for the sound in the background, is we're building an ecosystem and a solution where early stage PC founders are able to raise funds from traditional web to investors without the distraction and without the FUD that comes with join my Twitter, join my ex, join my Telegram, and join my Discord
so I can inflate the numbers to make myself look known and seen so that some known VC is going to
come and invest in me. And then guess what? They're going to dump my fucking token and use my community as exit liquidity. So we've changed that narrative.
So coming to the market opportunity, every founder, when they pitch themselves or they
have a pitch deck that says market opportunity, TAM, SAM and SOF, right right this is something that 98 of founders google they do not talk to their
actual users they do not talk to their actual end paying customers remember community is a very
flimsy word in web 3 because most startups and most founders will add their vendors their partners
their airdrop hunters their farmers their token holders their speculative traders
their investors all under one category which is called the community which is
a whole topic by itself when you're building a product one thing that you
need to know about is your end user that's actually going to pay you as
opposed to you paying the user. We have
cultivated a culture within the space where we believe that incentivizing user is the right way
of giving them a reward which I agree you should be able to monetize your data your time and your
commitment but that does not mean that as a user you should be holding
the builders accountable because you did not get a lambo or you did not get to the moon
or you did not get that 10x because guess what those builders are building with five seven ten
years commitment you can't expect them to ship product, focus on tokenomics, focus on the token, focus on the community while doing partnerships, BD, sales, after sales service and crisis management all in the same time.
But we still kind of look at airdrops and incentivization as a mechanism of user onboarding, user acquisition and user retention.
reporting, user acquisition, and user retention.
And that itself is a whole different thing.
Coming back to the same point,
we need to look at each vertical in a different aspect.
If you're building a DeFi project,
look at what is the subcategory of the DeFi.
If you're building a GameFi project,
look at what is the subcategory of the GameFi
that you're going up to.
Like something Daniel said,
makes complete sense in Asia, right? asian southeast asian clients and users you are able to give them an incentive
mechanism that rewards them on their day-to-day use uber might be not the best thing that asia
might use because guess what they all have their own bikes but what they would really like
is maybe a discount on electricity maybe what they would really like is maybe a discount on electricity maybe what they
would really like is three months of unlimited data so while they're playing your game they
don't have to pay for the internet what they would like is a power bank very nice approach
great approach and i think that's what works and that's what's not going to work in a different
region and that broken down what would work let's say in the different region. And that broken down, what would work,
let's say in the south of India or in Manila, for example,
might not work in Mindanao and would not work in Cebu.
And this is where a founder, a project leader,
and the team needs to really break it down by saying,
where is my distribution?
How am I going to it?
And how much of that community that i'm after
understands centralization to decentralization very strong points i mean you really have to
know your community members who are you talking to be able to um like if they ask you to describe
them down to the detail of of the craziest detail of their lives,
you should be able to identify that.
And that's how you'll be able to speak to them in their language
in a way that they will understand and care about what it is you're building.
Yeah, very strong points.
Kim, how about you?
Would love to hear maybe the perspective of partnership or how product strategy insights come into play?
Definitely.
For me, myself, as the head of partnership,
what I see is that in our own ecosystem,
what kind of projects that we may have synergy with.
So for example, if when we are building Omniti Hub last year,
so we launched our mainnet during the Bitcoin halving.
And so we started with just,
I think three chains connected
and now expanded to, I think, three chains connected and now expanded to, I think, 20 plus chains already.
So I think along the way, we see that there's definitely needs for bridging to happen because
there will be needs for assets crossing to other chains to have, uh, some, uh, market activities,
like staking or whatsoever.
And, uh, they sometimes have like a jobs and everything like just,
um, uh, I think it's, it's like a incentives program that, uh,
a program that builds for attracting users to get on the chain and create some volumes on the chain
itself so that makes the whole thing like it's very happening but to for us we are quite
very firm in terms of what we want so that's why we don't really do like airdrops or those,
I would say those not really back to the fundamental
of how we can provide values to the users.
So we all, all the time, I think we always believe in that
if we can deliver good products that
really hits the heart of the users be it b2c or be it b2b we can actually do it even without all
those incentives but of course in this competitive environment definitely we need some incentives as well to attract and to make it faster,
to expedite the whole speed of collaboration.
So I think it's more towards
like how we can balance in between.
And of course, for the founding team
and also for the project team,
I think it is more towards on how truthful
yourself towards the metrics that you see, whether or not you are really down to, I'm
not saying down to earth, but really building something that is meaningful, real users are using it or, uh, some, we may see that, uh, projects are doing some,
um, fake figures, right. Uh, but not to mention anything, but, uh, that's a thing that, uh,
all of the builders know about it. So just to, to differentiate between that and for us, we position ourselves as value
creation and also
keep on building things that matters
the most. So yeah,
that's how we partners
with different projects
and I think this aligns to
a lot of good project teams as well
so that also creates a positive
cycle along the way.
Build things that matter.
I love that.
Yes, because again,
if you're building something that people don't need,
don't care about,
no one's going to use it.
And if no one uses it,
it's awful.
It's terrible.
What good is it for, right?
But the same can be said,
as I've mentioned when I opened the question,
is no matter how good your product is,
if you don't have users, again, that doesn't mean anything. So Mo emphasized that, you know,
founders need to go beyond the TAM, Samsung, and actually understand their real users.
Community, the term now is so flimsy. Yeah, so we really have to understand what it is we're building and who we're building
it for um because community isn't just a catch all it needs really deeper segmentation and then
kim emphasized that um in scaling omnity across what is it 30 chains from from eight did i uh
pick that up correctly i mean that's incredible what a big leap and
what I got from what you shared was the biggest lesson was that you have to bridge not only these
chains but also create that bridge for I mean to fill in that gap for the users right it's not literally just about the
infrastructure but also about that emotional connection and product relevance that you guys
are building um all right very very strong stuff i think i after this episode i would need like an
hour of myself alone just to process everything um Now let's get into some common misconceptions. There
are a lot, a lot, a lot. Sometimes what holds people back isn't really the tech, it's also the
narrative, right? I'll say that again. Sometimes what holds people back isn't the tech, it's the
narrative. So Jerry and Mo would love to hear your thoughts on what
you think are the biggest misconceptions about centralization in Web3 and how are they addressed?
Um, maybe I go first.
Yeah, I think some of the biggest misconceptions about centralization is that, you know, it's more centralized, the more risk also centralizes.
Right. But we also have to remember that, you know, like I think one of the most prominent examples is very recently, you know, biggest uh crypto hack that have happened to bybit
um but we can we need to also remember like um decentralization doesn't mean hack proof right um
before uh the bybit hack uh actually personally i was uh i i was involved involved in another hack of a decentralized protocol by the same group, by the North Koreans.
And I think in this specific case, you know, by bid, they had enough reserve to kind of like make sure their users are still able to withdraw their money.
But in a completely decentralized setting, who is to be held accountable?
I think that's one misconception that some of the most hardcore,
pro-decentralized people need to realize is that um
you like users at the end of the day if you are fully on board with the decentralization you you
are the last line of defense right but in a centralized uh solution at least you have someone who's taking care of the security, although it's not always hack proof, but at least
you have a team or a centralized entity who is doing that for you.
Another misconception I'll say is that Web3 must be like completely decentralized, but I don't think that's true.
And I think in the beginning of this space, we kind of like address that crypto is moving towards like a hybrid model of it.
And I think there are a lot of like successful kind of like cases for that.
The biggest centralized exchange is Binance. like successful kind of like cases for that.
The biggest centralized exchange is Binance. Yes, it's a centralized exchange,
but they also have their BNB chain,
which is a decentralized blockchain.
And also, you know, like centralized exchanges like OKX
have their decentralized exchange on the side as well.
So I think like addressing the misconcession,
there is no like one size fits all solution.
It's, you know, whichever solution fits your use case best.
And I think that's, and I think the most important part,
it comes back to educating the users on each case and what centralization can bring, what are its risks, as well as the counterpart, which is decentralization solutions. Very great point.
Would like to highlight what you said.
Yes, I completely agree.
We've mentioned it a couple of times here as well, where we're moving towards a hybrid model because, again, we are addressing a lot of problems and there's not just one solution
to that.
And that's OK.
That's perfectly fine.
I think what's more important for us now is to be able to determine the strengths
and weaknesses of each possible solutions and just make it work, right? We make it work. If we need
to use a hybrid model, then a hybrid model it is. Mo, before I jump into you and pick your brain
apart, Tom, I'm actually curious. You guys are doing a lot of great stuff there in ICP Hub Taiwan
with educating. I've seen most of your content as well. So I guess you guys have,
you guys might have encountered a lot of questions, a lot of misconceptions
about decentralization and centralization in Web3. I'm curious how do you guys address these
problems or these questions from the community? Okay, I think this is a pretty cool and funny
question. I totally agree with Jerry from BTSe because the misconception almost about the centralization and decentralization.
Actually, for me, I don't have the unique or the perfect solution to help people to realize the misconceptions.
But I can take some examples for you guys and i think the the not education i think if we share the knowledge
to lots of people they can understand more about the web suite so in reality i think the
centralizedization is just a tool because a lot somebody told that a centralized chain is always bad. But for me, it's just a tool.
It depends on how it's used and why it's used.
For example, many early-stage web 3 teams
choose centralized tools like cloud hosting
or upgraded contracts.
Not because they want to control,
but because they need to build fast, fix bugs,
and improve user experience,
that doesn't mean they are fake web 3 as long as they are honest about it and have a plan to decentralize over time.
On the flip side, some apps claim to be fully on-chain, but owning their token lives on-chain.
Their front-head might still run on AWS
or code-centralized APIs.
So if that goes down, users can access anything.
This creates a full sense of decentralization.
So ICP solves this by offering
two full-stake decentralization.
For example, OpenChat and DSCVR, I think you guys already heard about this,
holds their front-end and back-end data directly on chain using canisters.
The canister is a smart country on ICP.
This removes hidden points of failure and makes the app truly unstable.
And answer the question, how do we address this myth?
By showing that centralization isn't always bad, but invisibleualization is. So the BEPS web 3, I think,
is they use sensualization transparently and treat decentralization as a step-by-step process,
not a checkbox only.
So this is my answer.
Very interesting. I love that.
Treat it step-by-step, not like a check box only type of thing
Yes, okay. Mo, how about you? What are your thoughts around this?
Love his answer like ICP Taiwan you're a genius on answering this right?
This is how it should be approached
It's hard
It's not a step-by-step, neither is it a checkbox.
How you have to approach it is you as a builder
and you as a founder, and I'll speak from both sides.
Have to think about this.
How can you get your vision, your product, your solution
in the quickest manner to the right audience,
whether that is centralized or decentralized. Because your first goal and your only goal when you're building, especially as a first-time founder, first-time builder, is to ship and
break it as quickly as possible. Once you are able to ship and once you're able to break it you
then have an audience which is potentially a paying audience because this is the business
that we are in web3 even at this current stage is very simply translated a place to make more money
and to access magical internet money and ugGM, user-generated money.
We're all in it for the same reason.
And our secondary reason is creating excellence.
And that excellence is based on products, games, solutions, DeFi, AI, infra, and so on.
Start centralized, go decentralized eventually.
As long as you believe in that ethos and you live by it and you'll stand by it
and you'll consistently be there through the bull, through the bear and through the cab market,
you will figure out what makes more sense and what has value.
Anything starts, if you're in the game long enough through all the seasons you will become
decentralized and even if you don't completely become decentralized you will become hybrid
which is much better than being centralized again i mean some really powerful truth are just have
been shared just now but um my one big takeaway is that centralization isn't always about
control it can actually enable trust when it's paired with transparency as tom mentioned and
clear intent um as mo shared where um i think jerry also said it best where think of it as a tool of how and why you're using it.
And often what looks like bad centralization is just misunderstood structure, right?
Education, communication really are key also in changing that narrative.
And so this is why I love hosting, joining and listening to X Spaces because you guys share some perspectives, some hard truths that we have to hear.
centralization isn't that like it isn't all bad decentralization isn't all good and it's a mix of
two that would really help us propel this technology to where it could be yes okay so
let's follow that up with something every builder worries, which is security, especially when you mix models.
What does security even look like, right?
So yeah, I guess Jerry and Chris, you guys would be good at answering this.
Okay, Chris is not here.
I keep calling him.
I keep forgetting.
Jerry, spotlights on you.
What security and trust challenges come with centralized solutions
in a decentralized ecosystem?
That's a really good question.
Obviously, I think this question is bigger than, like, I can answer it alone.
But coming from.
Yeah, it's a lot.
It's bad.
Yes, but I think exchanges, especially centralized, like centralized exchanges, centralized solutions, we really need to.
On the security front, it's something that really needs to be taken extremely seriously.
And that, you know, more transparency is better. at a centralized exchange, after the Bybit incident,
more security measures, at least from what I can see, has been implemented.
And I do see a future where big centralized entities
incorporate maybe like more decentralized
custodial solutions, perhaps,
that could kind of mitigate like a centralized risk as well.
But it's kind of like a ongoing problem
because hackers will always try to find ways to exploit.
Yes, they always find ways. Dang, they evolve as well.
Exactly.
So I think for the centralized entities,
it's just very important to keep upgrading your security
and to stay on top of your game
because attacks will always happen and um it's just
very important to keep on improving and um and to like whenever there's a like whenever there's a
hole in the ship you have to patch it up um and um yeah i don't, like, all the answers to this, but I think exchanges need to act with integrity.
And, yeah, maybe some of the other speakers will also have more insights on this.
I mean, great point.
Yes, it's such a huge topic.
We can talk about it for an hour or so,
or even a whole day,
just talking about security, right?
But I think you gave up really great points.
I see Daniel raising his hand.
Yeah, go ahead.
Share your thoughts.
Well, we talk about security.
We just think about the technical aspects.
And that will be not one hour.
That will be days and days of discussion.
But most problems that have with hacking are human-based, okay?
And you cannot control other people's actions.
In a company, you cannot control even the team that are working with you but there
was a keyword here that is very relevant for me which is ethical okay we need to have work ethics
and people need to have ethics okay so independent of the security issues there's a lot of companies
that are on the backhand of things and they can just have access to so much information on your mobile.
And me with my team, I'm always on top of them to make sure that we're not taking advantage of information that's not asked for.
Like, we know where this guy is from, his language, and a lot more things, things like scraping techniques.
We get away with that.
And even when you go to bigger companies that have their own SDKs, these built-in tools are there. And'm thinking this is not okay so on one hand we have this idea
that the hackers are super smart and intelligent i think it's just people that are taking advantage
because one they're not careful second the hackers are not evil the problem is when the hacker
Second, the hackers are not evil.
The problem is when the hacker is the company that you're getting service from.
You understand?
So this is something very difficult to talk about,
especially when you know things can go very sideways if one is not serious.
So I would just say be careful for yourself.
And if you're careful, nothing's going to happen now these
hacks we just hear half of the story maybe it's something from the inside maybe it's not i don't
want to even bring the conversation there but i'm just saying that most of these systems they're
safe if there's a hack it's a personal hack normally but if it's not a personal hack uh
But if it's not a personal hack, don't choose sides because there's no good sides as you go up.
Don't go too up.
That's my take on it.
I hope I didn't ruin the question by giving this gloominess to it.
But I had to.
I need details.
Like after this call, I'm going to hit you up.
It seems like you know something that we don't.
Yes, Jerry, go ahead.
Yeah, I just want to echo the same sentiment.
I think a lot of these hacks, like previously discussed,
it might seem like, oh, the hackers are super smart um they figure
out the loophole but a lot of the times like it's yes it's it's it's people within you know
uh certain entities um that have access with bad intentions so I think it comes down to like
the crypto community as a whole like the builders community to also mature and evolve
um and yes i think it comes back to ethics and and um integrity like you um like it's kind of
cliche right like with great power comes great responsibility and i think um that's something that all founders and builders, whether you're centralized, decentralized, that there are two actors here that we can talk about, the tech and the people behind the tech, right?
So from smart contract vulnerabilities to lack of transparency, each model really has its weak spots.
model really has its weak spots. Let's just call them at that. But what stood out to me is what
Let's just call them at that.
Daniel said. We need more work ethics. We need integrity. And Jerry, you pointed out in your
earlier answer as well, the need for more security measures as well. Clear communication with the
users is also very important. Strong auditing practices, exploring custodial solutions,
you know, because whether you're building fully decentralized or fully centralized or maybe
somewhere in between, trust has to be earned, not assumed. So yeah, very, very strong.
We could even say controversial points. But yeah, very interesting.
I love how honest and just deep everyone goes here.
All right.
I guess we'll wrap this up
with maybe some last words of wisdom.
In one sentence,
what's the one thing Web3 builders should remember
when choosing between centralization and decentralization
tom let's start with you okay like i say um so the the only one sentence i choose is that
if it needs trust decentralize it if it needs to be optimized it So this is my sentence. I will steal that quote for sure.
I love that.
You said that with such confidence and with such precision.
I love it.
You explained it very, very well.
Thanks for that, Tom.
Mo, how about you?
I love Tom's quote over here, to be honest.
I think my one last
takeaway
one-liner would be
as you said, ethic, right?
As a builder, as a user,
as a consumer, as someone that's
in this space, be ethical. That's it.
Love that. Very, very strong.
Jerry, how about you
um i would say for if we were to wrap it up and and advice for for builders to what choose rather
you know to lean towards centralization or decentralization is to know your users and
know your users know what their needs are.
And that will tell you whether to be more centralized
or decentralized.
Know your user.
Yes.
Love that as well.
Kim, what say you?
I would say pretty hard because I do agree
with Tom's quote, where security comes with decentralization uh and i
think for me uh i would take it as uh maybe a statement of uh be it uh decentralization or
centralization a group product is what it needs for the market so, I think a good product,
be it decentralized
or centralized
or even a hybrid,
as long as
it serves the needs
and the purpose,
then
it is good anyway.
There's no right and wrong.
Yes,
just make good products.
Products that solve problems.
Products that entertain.
Products that make
life
easier. That's a very strong point, and products that make life easier.
That's a very strong point, Kim.
Thank you so much.
Daniel, how about you?
It's very easy.
Put yourself on the other side.
You said about drawing a line on the sand.
I'm going to go there.
And you'll say, if I'm a founder, if I'm a builder, put yourself on the user side.
If you're a user, put yourself on the builder side.
Try and see the other side.
In my case, I'm on both sides at the same time, which means I'm doing a game for myself.
What would I like to have as a gamer, as a user?
So just put yourself on the other side and be ethical about it. be be ethical about it be wise just don't be an
asshole don't be an asshole i would say don't be an asshole yes uh i mean very very very strong
points i love our conversation today i get so raw it's so honest unfiltered obviously um but i
appreciate it i bet everyone else who i speak for everyone uh when i
say how how fun this was and again it was just so it feels honestly refreshing because with with
other spaces we're so so careful with with the things we say but in this one, we said, Daniel said asshole.
Daniel gave us conspiracy theories.
And everyone just gave very specific instances or very specific experiences in Web3, which is hard to come by.
So thank you.
In our language, maraming salamat.
Thank you very much.
And so with a heavy heart, because I love this conversation,
we wrap up tonight's X-PACES with ICP Hubs Network.
Hopefully we get to have a part two with this specific panel
because I still have so many questions for you guys.
But yeah, huge thank you to all of you,
to all of our amazing speakers for the insights.
And of course to you for tuning in.
You are the reason why we do this.
If you enjoy this conversation, don't forget to keep joining us.
It's every Friday at this time, wherever you are in the world.
Don't forget to follow ICP Hubs Network at ICP Hubs,
myself included at Miss Modern Malone if you want to say hi and be friends.
We host spaces regularly around the world, bringing builders and thinkers together to shape the future of Web3.
I'm Modern Milan, your host and ICP of Philippines ambassador.
Again, here every Friday night at this hour, whatever time zone you're in, we'd love for you to join the conversation again.
Again, to our speakers, thank you. Thank you very much.
I enjoyed every bit of discussion tonight.
Hope you guys enjoyed as well.
Until next time,
keep building, stay curious,
and thanks for being with us tonight.
Bye. Thank you.
