TECHNOLOGIES

Web3

Software built on public blockchains, where users hold their own assets and identity in a wallet instead of in a vendor's database.

Last reviewed: byKevin Riedl wiki ↗

Web3 names a family of technologies, not a single thing. The shared property is that user state (assets, identity, sometimes data) lives on a public blockchain instead of in a centralised database. The user signs transactions with a private key they hold. The vendor cannot freeze or delete their account.

In practice the term covers wallets, smart contracts, decentralised exchanges, NFTs, DAOs, account abstraction, ZK-based systems, cross-chain bridges, and the application layer that sits on all of the above. Wavect builds in this space across EVM (Ethereum and its compatible chains), Solana, Cosmos, Polkadot, Near, Ton, and ICP.

Worked example of the decision: a founder wants a loyalty-points app and a pitch deck told them to put it “on-chain”. Apply three tests. Do the points need to survive the company going bankrupt? Do multiple parties who do not trust each other need to share the ledger without a central operator? Do they need permissionless composability with other on-chain systems? For a single-company loyalty scheme the answer is no, no, and no, so the right tool is a database, and putting it on a blockchain just adds gas costs, key-management support tickets, and a regulatory headache. Flip one answer to yes (say, points redeemable across competing merchants) and the calculus changes.

The Austrian and EU nuance founders underestimate: a token that looks like a payment instrument or a security drags MiCA, prospectus rules, and tax treatment into scope. “Decentralised” does not exempt you, and the legal cost of getting the token classification wrong dwarfs the engineering cost of the contract. Scope that before you write the smart contract, not after.

The honest version: most Web3 projects do not need a blockchain. The ones that do (assets that must survive the vendor’s bankruptcy, multi-party trust without a central operator, permissionless composability) are valuable. The rest are venture-funded distractions. The trade-off is permanence cuts both ways: the same immutability that makes web3 trustworthy means a shipped bug is a bug forever and value is at stake from minute one. We will tell you which category you fall into.

// FAQ

FAQs

Three tests: do the user’s assets need to survive the company’s bankruptcy, do multiple untrusted parties need to share state without a central operator, do you need permissionless composability with other on-chain systems? If none apply, you do not need web3, you need a database.
Depends on use case. EVM (Ethereum, L2s) for DeFi composability and developer pool. Solana for high throughput and low fees in consumer apps. Cosmos for app-specific chains. Pick the chain that matches the trade-off, not the chain with the loudest marketing this quarter.
Treating the smart contract like normal software. Code is immutable once deployed, value is at stake from minute one, and there is no rollback. Teams that ship without a third-party audit on anything holding non-trivial value learn this the expensive way.