Web3与社交网络的未来｜万字研讨实录（下）

对话者

Interlocutors

Suji Yan Mask Network founder

Luke Web3MQ co-founder

joshua RSS3 founder

Tim .bit founder

Kent bfrenz co-founder

yao metaforo founder

twinx 2dao3 founder

主持人徐思彦 腾讯研究院高级研究员 本文由研讨整理而成，有删减。仅代表嘉宾个人观点，不代表腾讯研究院的机构立场。上篇内容请参考：《Web3将如何影响社交网络？｜万字研讨实录（上）》

Please refer to Web3: How will social networks be affected?

随着埃隆·马斯克完成对Twitter的收购，也将Web3社交的概念推向了台前。在Twitter上，马斯克多次提及Web3，他也曾表示希望Twitter能成为一个言论自由的公共平台，而这必然要依靠更多的区块链技术和去中心化理念来实现。Twitter也曾尝试引入诸多Web3功能，例如比特币打赏、NFT头像等。

As Elon Mask completes his acquisition of Twitter, he pushes the concept of Web3 socialization ahead of the stage. On Twitter, Mask has repeatedly mentioned Web3, and he has expressed the hope that Twitter will become a public platform for freedom of expression, which will necessarily be achieved by more block-link technology and decentralizing ideas. Twitter has also tried to introduce a number of Web3 functions, such as Bitcoin rewards, NFT heads, etc.

在Web2.0的世界中，社交被誉为互联网皇冠上的明珠，而社交赛道一定将在Web3时代出现千亿美金级别的公司。此次收购是否拉开了Web3社交领域的序幕？本次研讨请到数位Web3社交领域的创始人，共同探讨什么是Web3社交？如何理解Web3社交的关键特征？Web2社交平台如何向Web3转型？共同破题Web3社交的发展之路。

In the Web 2.0 world, socialization is celebrated as the jewel of the Internet crown, and the social track will appear in the hundreds of billions of dollars of companies in the Web3 era. Did the acquisition lead to the Web3 social sphere?

主持人：首先我们进入第一个问题，如何评价马斯克收购Twitter这个事件，Web3.0转型是它背后的动力吗？现在Twitter私有化以后可能有哪些转型路径？

Moderator: First of all, we go to the first question, how to evaluate the Mask takeover of Twitter, where the Web3.0 transition is the driving force behind it. What are the transition paths now that Twitter has been privatized?

suji：说到Twitter这个事件，我觉得是这样，首先收购解决了几个问题，传统的上市公司和合规角度对于代币和更高风险的资产发行，肯定是没有先例的。而它从上市公司变成私有化公司，等于解决了这部分问题，也是让它名正言顺。当然这一部分存在非常大的争议，也不确定能在近期完成。

Suji: Speaking of Twitter, I think that this is the case, first of all, that the acquisition solves a few problems, and that there must be no precedent for the distribution of tokens and more high-risk assets from the traditional perspective of listed companies and compliance. And its transformation from a listed company into a privatized company would solve this part of the problem and give it legitimacy.

什么叫做“名正言顺”呢？我们以去中心化最成功的两个协议，就是比特币和以太坊为例。虽然我们都知道美国有财政部旗下外国资产管理办公室，去实施实体清单和sanctions list，但是协议层并没有遵守它的先例，而应该是各个比特币机构或者以太坊节点主动进行审核，并不是协议层要做这个事。如果Twitter要成为协议层的话必须名正而言顺，就美国国内或者Twitter已有用户里的KOL，比如DonaldTrump这个事怎么解决？

What's the word "right word"? We take the two most successful agreements of decentralisation, namely Bitcoin and Etheria. While we all know that the United States has an asset management office under the Ministry of the Treasury to implement the list of entities and operations list, the agreement level does not follow its precedent. Rather, it is the bitcoins or the Taicha node that has taken the initiative to review it.

我觉得主要是为了扫清这个障碍。和Twitter员工或者Twitter用户个人的观点无关，我们认为它就是能够在这样一个平台上进行一些发言。就算你要对他进行审查，也需要由协议层进行投票或达成共识机制，这是一个名正言顺的概念。我不确定之后共和党这些KOL什么时候能回到推特，当然目前看到没有任何障碍，已经逐渐开始放开一些人了。

Even if you want to review him, it will also require a vote or consensus-building mechanism at the protocol level, which is the concept of legitimacy. I am not sure when these Republican KOLs will return to Twitter after that, but now, of course, see that there are no obstacles and that some people have gradually begun to liberalize.

第三点是另外一句话，当服务是免费的时候，你就是产品。因为大家都知道当服务是免费的时候，用户可能通过别的方式被协议或者被公司所“收费”，以广告或者其它方式。我们今天作为普通的Web1和2的用户，我们愿意买些东西，比如每个月付50-100块钱给运营商提供话费。我作为开发者，也是愿意付钱给ADS10美元或5美元，我也愿意花10美元买星巴克或者吃东西。当然我们知道，可能对于更广大的发展中国家用户来说，这是很高的成本，但是也看到有很多替代方案，比如说传音手机，有当地非常便宜的运营商，有受到补助的方案。

The third point is that when the service is free, you are the product. Because everyone knows that when the service is free, users may be agreed upon or “feed” by companies in other ways, advertising or otherwise. As ordinary Web1 and 2 users, we are willing to buy things today, for example, $50-100 a month to pay for the operator. As a developer, I am willing to pay ADS $10 or $5, and I am willing to spend $10 to buy a Starbucks or eat. We know, of course, that this may be a high cost for larger developing-country users, but we also see a number of alternatives, such as audio phones, very cheap local operators, and subsidized programmes.

这些方案其实是花了很多年进入人的潜意识里，（使我们）认为这是合理的事情，其实今天我们去看在如今这样一个社交网络发达的世界里，为什么你不能反过来进行收费？或许因为不收费可能是一种更有利的商业模式。

These programs have actually taken years to get into the subconscious, which we think is reasonable, but today we are going to see why, in a world where social networks are now well developed, you cannot charge fees in turn? Maybe because non-fees may be a more favourable business model.

8美元（付费认证）的事情其实是最近闹得比较厉害的，我们和Twitter原来的团队有不少交流。我举一个例子其实能非常好地证明这个事情的诡异之处。去年我们投的一个平台叫做sent，它做了一个事，就是把JackDorsey第一条推文变成了NFT卖掉了，这条推文卖了300万美元，后面Jack在同一天把这三百万美元捐给了非洲（通过一个NGO捐比特币，很快捐掉了）。

The thing about $8 (a fee-paying certification) is actually quite recent, and we've had a lot of conversation with the original Twitter team. I give one example that is actually very good proof of the weirdness of the thing. Last year, one of the platforms we put in was sent, which was to sell Jack Dorsey's first tweet to NFT, which sold $3 million, and Jack donated that $3 million to Africa on the same day (through an NGO that donated bitcoin very quickly).

有意思的在于他作为公司CEO，间接贩卖了Twitter公司资产，就是第一条推文。但是并没有任何法律和用户协议阻止他做这件事，这事又原原本本变成了他个人持有的物品物权。我的第一条推文就像我的出生证一样，我想卖就卖了。但是Twitter公司肯定不爽，三百万美元营收不香吗？

Interestingly, as a CEO, he indirectly sold the assets of Twitter, which is the first tweet. But there was no law and no user agreement to stop him from doing it, and it turned out to be his personal property rights. My first tweet was like my birth certificate, and I wanted to sell it. But is Twitter not happy, and is it three million dollars?

我们投的这家公司是做平台的，把Twitter变成NFT，它也没有收到税，手续费几乎微不可测。到底谁收到这里面的税？你会发现更牛的在于以太坊和以太坊的侧链和比特币收到这里面的税，因为NFT在以太坊的策略，这个钱又是由以太坊去结算的，所以这个NFT收到了一点点税。所以你会发现，这件事情中收到税的是三个链和一个协议，和Twitter这家公司或是Jack本人一点关系都没有。

The company we're investing in is a platform, turning Twitter into NFT, and it doesn't receive any taxes, and the fees are almost impossible. Who gets the taxes? You'll find it even more powerful that the Ether and Etheron side chains and bitcoin receive the taxes, because the NFT's strategy in Ether and the money is settled by Ether, so the NFT receives a little tax. So you'll find that the tax is paid in three chains and one agreement, and it has nothing to do with Twitter or Jack himself.

这是一个很好的例子，就说明今天的Twitter这家公司没有任何收税能力，它就是一个非常普通的商业实体。所以我理解那8美元（付费认证）是未来的铺垫，以后的Twitter可能存在不同的节点，有不同的情况，比如发展中国家节点可能质量会稍微差一点，但是也能够很好地提供服务，并且非常便宜。你要用一个高端的节点，可能有各种各样的service，里面还整合了去中心化存储、去中心化CDN、去中心化的域名，可能就要8美元一个月，我觉得这是它的预热。

This is a good example of today’s Twitter company, which has no tax capacity, and which is a very common commercial entity. So I understand that the $8 (payment certification) is a future cushion, and that there may be different nodes on Twitter, and that there may be different situations, such as developing country nodes, which may be of a slightly lower quality, but which can also be very service-efficient and very cheap. You need to use a high-end node, which may be a variety of services, which combines decentralizing storage, decentralizing CDN, decentralizing domain names, which I think may be $8 a month, which is preheating.

最终可能计价不是美元而是Twitter自立代币，这个东西一旦实现了，几乎就铺平了道路。这是我觉得它在做的三件事：一个是解决法律障碍，一个是解决名不正言不顺的障碍，第三个是推动意识形态层面用户心智转变。当然到底能不能发行代币还需要去看，特别是美国政府的监管、合规问题还要有很大的考量。

Eventually, the price may not be the dollar, but the Twitter token, which, when realized, almost paved the way. That is three things I think it is doing: it’s resolving legal obstacles, it’s resolving the inflexible barriers, and it’s promoting intellectual change at the ideological level.

我们说一个协议化的Twitter，它的潜在价值是数千亿美元，而一个公司制的Twitter其实已经有美股标过价了，它就是值300-400亿。未来Twitter可能是什么样的呢？可能不会超过10年、5年左右的时间会实现，它可能大量地整合类似于Lens这样的协议甚至整合各种各样的链，比如说以太坊的侧链，它可能在狗狗币上做了智能合约的侧链进行整合。它的协议税收能力就能保证未来的球星或者名人，像Jack一样突然想要卖自己的Twitter时就能收到税，而且它能够原生地把刚才提到的侧链，以太坊捐款转帐的所有地方集成到更宏大的场景里去，并且不和他们竞争而是和他们合作。

We say that an agreed Twitter, which has the potential value of hundreds of billions of dollars, and a company-made Twitter, which is already overvalued by US shares, is worth 30-40 billion. What might Twitter be in the future? It may not take more than 10 or about five years to come, and it may massively integrate agreements like Lens and even integrate chains, for example, the Ether Ribbon's side chain, and it may integrate intelligent contracts on the puppies. Its agreed tax capacity will guarantee that future stars or celebrities, like Jack, will receive taxes when they suddenly want to sell their tweets, and it will be able to bring all the sides that have just been mentioned to a bigger scene and to work with them instead of competing with them.

这个事情发展到完全的时候，我们就认为说它已经能达到一个千亿级的标准，今天社交网络加文娱为主业的公司，股价最高的已经到了两千亿美元上下。我认为一旦Twitter完成协议化，它就能很快地冲破两千亿美元壁垒。其他任何玩家都是处于进两步退一步的阶段，它其实也是一个浅尝辄止，并没有更激进地做这个事。所以从创业者角度，我还是比较支持做这个事，但是它可能会遇到非常大的阻力，合规、政治、意识形态等等层面的阻力。

At the end of the day, we thought that it had reached the hundreds of billions of standards, and that today's social networking and entertainment companies, with the highest share value of $200 billion, could quickly break the $200 billion barrier once Twitter had been agreed. Any player was in a two-step backsliding phase, and it was a little more radical than ever. So from an entrepreneur's point of view, I was more supportive of doing it, but it might encounter a lot of resistance, compliance, politics, ideology, and so on.

主持人：感谢suji的分享，他给我们分享了Twitter未来5-10年可能的路径。从合规到产品到生态，可能会形成下一个千亿级的社交生态。下一个问题是我们从刚才分享的各种Web3.0社交发展版图来看，当前哪些产品是有可能突围的呢？

Moderator: Thank you for Suji’s sharing, who shared with us possible paths for Twitter for the next 5-10 years. From compliance to product to ecology, the next 100 billion levels of social ecology are likely to emerge. The next question is which products are likely to break through from the various Web3.0 social development maps that we have just shared.

Tim：我先从个人角度谈谈Web3.0社交的现状和现象。现在都是一些很极客的工程师来做的，而不是产品经理做的，所以做出来就是极客玩具，很酷但是使用门槛极高，我觉得最终如果它本身不能做出改变的话，依然还是会局限在极客的圈子里。

Tim: Let me start with the status and phenomenon of Web3.0 socialization from a personal point of view. Now it's done by some very great engineers, not by the product manager, so it's a great toy, it's cool, but it's a very high threshold, and I think it's still stuck in the circle if it doesn't change itself.

另外一类Web3.0社交产品，就是把1-100想得非常好了，我们已经有用户了，但是0-1想得还不是很清楚。换句话说，现在很多Web3.0社交产品缺乏场景，它的需求也不够刚需，用户缺少“我不得不用”的理由，就是有太多可替代的选择了。这是看到第二个现象。

In other words, many Web3.0 social products now lack scenes, their needs are short of demand, and users lack “I have to use” reasons: there are too many alternatives. This is a second phenomenon.

第三个现象也是东西方，国外在社交或者相关事情上叙事很牛，但是做事很拉跨。往往都是叙事打得很满，但是东西半年出不来。国内团队尤其是华人团队就是更趋向于做事，但想不清楚这个故事应该怎么去讲，无法融入主流市场，这是我判断现在不光是社交产品而且很多Web3.0领域的产品都是这样的。

The third phenomenon is the East-West side, where social or related narratives are great, but they are difficult to do. It is often full of narratives, but it is not possible to do it for six months. The domestic team, and the Chinese team in particular, is more likely to do it, but it is not clear how the story should be told and cannot be integrated into the mainstream market, which is what I judge to be not just social products, but also many of the Web3.0 products.

到底谁能突围？可能有两个方向，一是原生的Web3.0创业团队他们做出了一个符合未来需求的Web3.0社交产品，还有一个方向是，现有的比较进取的Web2.0大公司，直接就进化到下个阶段，变成Web3.0社交产品，就像大家一直在讨论的Twitter一样。

Who could break through? There could be two directions: the original Web3.0 business team, which produced a Web3.0 social product that meets future needs, and the existing more progressive Web 2.0 companies, which evolved directly to the next stage and became Web3.0 social products, just like Twitter, which you have been discussing.

我觉得大家不能低估有庞大用户量的Web2.0公司切入到Web3.0可能性，以及他们可能带来的影响力。举个例子，我们知道钱包是现在很重要的赛道，我自己曾经也做过钱包，走过很多弯路。现在行业里钱包类型非常多，从早期的桌面钱包，到后来的移动钱包，到预交钱包，再到现在的MPC。但所有的这些都抵挡不住苹果在iOS里直接把钱包功能内置进去。你说到底谁最终能获得市场？现有的、这些拥有庞大资源的Web2.0公司，其实他们是有可能性的，只要有思想觉悟的话。但是如果思想觉悟不够的话，每个人都变成诺基亚，这也是有可能的。

I don't think you can underestimate the potential of Web 2.0, which has a large number of users, to cut into Web3.0 and their potential influence. We know, for example, that wallets are now an important track, and I have made purses myself, and I have gone through a lot of curves. There are a lot of wallets in the industry, from early desktop wallets to later mobile wallets to pre-posing wallets to now MPCs. But all of these do not stop apples from putting their wallets directly in the iOS.

我也蛮看好Twitter新的可能性。老实讲，在Web3.0社交里我们知道很多团队在做，我觉得核心还是需求不够聚焦。现在所有的创业者还是那样，如果要做Web3.0社交赛道的话，要找到用户不得不用你这个产品的点，以及同时不得不用的点是中心化系统所实现不了的，我觉得只有这样的产品才有可能突围。

To be honest, we know a lot of teams are doing it in Web3.0, and I think the core is not focused. All entrepreneurs are still doing it, if we're going to be going to Web3.0, we're going to have to find the point where users have to use your product, and the point that we have to use at the same time is something that is not achieved by a centralized system, which I think is the only way to break through.

主持人：谢谢Tim，代表了Web2.0产品思维的观点。其实我们今天也有很多Web3.0创业者，请他们分享一下怎么评价现在Web3.0社交路径，像Luke自己做了一个Web3.0MQU的协议，你的产品是想从什么角度解决Web3.0社交问题？

Moderator: Thank you, Tim, for representing the thinking of Web2.0 products. We have a lot of Web3.0 entrepreneurs today, who would like to share their assessment of the social path of Web3.0 now, like Luke himself, who made a Web3.0MQU agreement, and how does your product want to solve the social problems of Web3.0?

Luke：我们做的某种意义上有点像公共的通信层。我们希望让人和人之间能够互相之间交流这件事情，变得有点像一个个体。我认识某一个朋友，和他认识这件事情可能单纯是数据性的事情，大家只能知道这么一个事情。所以我们在做的事情就是，如果两个人认识我们，能不能有一个比较去信任化，让所有人都可以去run，以此来保持它的中立性和去信任化性质的网络，以此来提供任何两个朋友都可以互相通信的这样一套极简设施。

Luke: What we do is sort of like a public communications layer. We want people to be able to communicate with each other and become sort of like an individual. I know a friend and he knows that it may be simply a data matter, and that's all we know. So what we're doing is, if two people know us, can we have a relatively trustless network that allows everyone to run, so that we can maintain its neutrality and de-trust-based network, so that we can provide an extremely simple set of facilities where both friends can communicate with each other.

某种意义上，在Web2.0这样的东西会叫做中间件。但是我们做的并不是IM，所以其实未来可能重点也是服务好新一代的应用层。可能国内短期内不适合去投放这样一些服务，但是在海外一些IM底层也可以通过这样的新的服务。

In a sense, things like Web 2.0 would be called intermediates. But what we're doing is not IM, so the focus may be on serving the new generation of applications.

你会发现，很多行业发展到一定程度，都会呈现出往更加可组合方向发展趋势。可以举一个不太相关的例子，但是已经发生所以更可信的例子，就是芯片行业的演进。大家回想小时候，买所有笔记本电脑品牌都是英特尔，那时候觉得英特尔小贴纸非常帅，当时AMD是一个没有人去用的东西，也不会有人觉得AMD有一天真的去和英特尔竞争。但今天你会发现这个格局很不一样，但是原因也不在于AMD这个老二，而是因为当年有一个活不下去的小公司，因为想做英特尔一样的东西但是做不起来，于是做了一个只做设计的小公司，叫做ARM。不管怎样，芯片行业今天整个的景象和我们十几二十年前所想象得完全不一样，芯片行业今天非常“可组合”，大家都在做ARM技术，去做适合自己新型的CPU。我是做手机的或者新型笔记本电脑的，甚至像谷歌会在云端服务器上用自己定制化的ARM芯片。

You'll find that many industries have developed to a certain extent. A less relevant example can be given, but one that has come to be more credible is the evolution of the chip industry. When you think about it as a child, buying all laptop brands is Intel, and you think that the Intel piece of paper was very handsome. At the time, the AMD was a thing that nobody used, and no one would think that the AMD was actually going to compete with Intel. But today, you find the pattern very different, but it's not because the AMD is not a big one, but because there was a small company that couldn't survive, because it was a small company that wanted to do something like Intel but couldn't do it, and it was a small company that only designed it, called ARM. In any case, the chip industry as it was today, as we imagined 10 or 20 years ago, and the chip industry is really “combinable” today, and everyone's doing the ARM technology, and making the new CPU.

总结一下，我们会觉得整体把社交业态往更加可组合的方向去走，对我们来讲这里比较重要的事情就是后台的通信基建能力，就是把这一块可组合的小乐高块，就是人与人之间如何连接，用户与用户之间怎么样连接这个事情，通过我们的基建解决好，这是我们在做的事。

To sum up, we're going to think that it's more important for us to move from socialism as a whole to a more collusive direction, and that's what we're doing, that's what we're doing, that's what we're doing, that's what we're doing, that's how people connect, that's how users connect, that's how we connect, that's how we connect, that's what we're doing, that's what we're doing, that's what we're doing, that's what we're doing, that's what we're doing, that's what we're doing, that's what we're doing, that's what we're doing, that's what we're doing.

主持人：谢谢Luke，接下来请joshua，是另一个非常有名的社交协议RSS3的创始人。

Moderator: Thank you, Luke, and next, Joshua, the founder of another very well-known social agreement RSS3.

joshua：就刚才这个问题来说，我觉得现在的业态首先什么是Web3.0社交，还不是很明确，因为本身Web3.0这个词就有很多的可被理解的方式。Web3.0社交当然有更多理解方式，可能用某种去中心化方式或者去中心化技术去实现某种已经实现过的东西，当然最好的方式是用某种新的技术，和区块链互不相关的，去找到人们在本身社交通路中可能存在但一直没有解决好的需求。

JOSHUA: As far as this question is concerned, I think it's not very clear what the business is now, first and foremost, about Web3.0 socialization, because there are many ways in which the word Web3.0 itself can be understood. Web3.0 socialization is certainly more understood, and it may be possible to use some sort of decentralization or decentralization technology to achieve something that has already been achieved, but the best way to do so is to use some new technology, which is not related to a block chain, to find what people may have in their own social transport path, but which they have not been able to address.

目前来说，整个行业仍然处于我们没有看到非常好的方式，也就是什么东西是100%让用户过来的点，包括社交这个词本身就很非常泛泛。比如说，其实通讯算社交，陌生人社交算社交，内容创作在大框架下算社交，比如我关注你的东西，看你的东西就属于社交。社交这个词的泛化使得我们看整个行业发展时，会显得非常混乱，因为它需要很多组件。但是由于定义的不同，使得它所需要的组件也不同，所关注的事情差别非常非常大。

For the moment, the whole industry is still at a point where we don't see it very well, that is, what is 100% of the users, including the word socialization, which is very general in itself. For example, communication is socialization, socialization of strangers, socialization of content creation within a larger framework, such as what I'm looking at you, and socialization is social in nature. The generalization of the word makes it very confusing when we look at the development of the industry as a whole, because it requires a lot of components. But because of the different definitions, it requires different components, the concerns are very different.

最简单来讲社交源于基本的单位，因为社交通常来说不止一个人，虚拟需要身份。你做社交需要某种信息通路，可能是点对点的、点对面的、多对多的，我们在考虑社交时还要考虑到比方说已有的项目或者已有的Web2.0项目怎么桥接过来。这些事情非常复杂，而且我觉得整个行业里缺少定义——当一些项目在路上走得很好时，大家会从外界观测说这属于Web3.0社交，或者那不属于Web3.0社交，或者这类型的东西统称为Web3.0社交。

The most simple thing about socialization is that it comes from basic units, because socialization usually involves more than one person and virtual needs an identity. You need some kind of information, probably point-to-point, point-to-point, and many pairs, and when we think about socialization, we also consider how existing projects or Web 2.0 projects, for example, can be bridged. These things are very complicated and I think there is a lack of definition in the whole industry -- when some projects go well on the road, it is observed from the outside that they belong to Web3.0 or that they are not Web3.0 societies, or that they are all called Web3.0 social societies.

目前来说，我觉得还没有到那个等级，不过我们能看到一些创新确实在进行，比如说刚刚在这个行业里做的时候，可能消费性内容或者消费信息产生在虚拟化互联网上大约每天70条左右，一年半之后现在大概有七千条或者更高。虽然这个涨幅是一百倍，但是从绝对数量来讲是非常非常慢的。

At the moment, I don't think we've reached that level yet, but we can see that some of the innovations are actually going on, for example, when we've just done it in this industry, it is possible that consumer content or consumer information is generated on virtualized Internet about 70 per day, and about 7,000 or more after a year and a half. Although this is a 100-fold increase, they are very, very slow in absolute terms.

只不过刚才有提到像各种各样的新协议，在帮助我们更好地连接、更好地创作、更好地消费，我觉得这是整个行业里来说比较好的一些事情，不过目前来讲我们会看到整个行业里用户总量仍然很低，可能整个全球范围作为资产的用户可能有三四亿，持有去中心化钱包这种可能总量也就三四千万，活跃用户一两千万，再往下走像内容创作也好，社交也好这类型用户可能只有1%。

It's just that there are new agreements that help us to connect better, to create better and to consume better, which I think are better things for the industry as a whole, but for the time being we can see that the total number of users in the industry as a whole is still very low, that there may be about 3,400 million users worldwide as assets, that there may be only 30 million people with decentralized wallets, that there are 12 million active users, that it is better to go down as content creation and that socialization may be only 1 per cent.

到最后我们现在只有10万人、15万人，20万人。这个基础上很多的创新也好，包括社交协议也好产品也好，他们的网络信用很难发挥效果。我们仍然在期待着一个或几个比较好的项目或者说应用协议，能做出比较大的影响力，这个影响力不仅仅在Web3.0本身的信息里，包括有没有机会把整个行业里通过技术进步带来的赛道，补充到用户里。

By the end of the day, we have only 100,000, 150,000, 200,000 people. There are many innovations on this basis, including social agreements and products, and their network credit is hard to deliver. We are still looking forward to one or a few better projects, or application agreements, that can make a bigger impact, not only in Web3.0's own message, but also in terms of opportunities to add to users the races brought about by technological progress in the industry as a whole.

主持人：谢谢joshua，今天还有一位Web3.0社交论坛bfrenz的创始人Kent，请Kent为我们分享一下你从产品角度怎么理解Web3.0社交？

Moderator: Thank you, Joshua, and today, Kent, a founder of the Web3.0 social forum bfrenz, asked Kent to share with us how you understand Web3.0 from a product point of view.

Kent：大家好我是Kent，我是我们产品bfrenz的产品负责人，我们是一个希望帮助Web3.0新人的社交产品。先总结一下，其实从Web3.0社交来看大致分为三个类型：

Kent: Hi, I'm Kent, I'm the product manager of our product bfrenz, and we're a social product that wants to help newcomers to Web3.0. To sum up, there are basically three types of socialization in Web3.0:

第一，Web3.0社交协议。这种属于在基础架构上进行颠覆，非常强调中心化到一个彻底去中心化的idea，目前看他们以欧美项目为主。但是这个平台目前来看用户量不是特别多，但是他们的思想是最颠覆的。

First, the Web3.0 social protocol. This is a fundamental subversion, with a strong emphasis on centralizing to a completely decentralised idea that now looks to them as being dominated by the Euro-American project. But the platform does not currently seem to have a particularly large number of users, but their ideas are the most subversive.

第二，设计经济系统。让经济系统发行代币运行在区块链上，在他们的社交产品上，也有设计用户消费代币场景，也可以通过社交行为赚取代币的一些场景。还有他们的帐号是去中心化。这种我觉得可以简单归纳为它的产品有某些部分在区块链上就是部分去中心化，但是有IM或者信息分发机制它的用户是完全去中心化，但是这一类产品问题一旦模型设计得不好，它的激励就比较难形成社交的正反馈，也比较容易带来用户刷量行为。

Second, designing economic systems. Making economic systems issue tokens run on block chains, and on their social products, there are some of the scenes that design consumer currency consumption, and can be replaced by social behavior. And their accounts are decentralized. I think some of the products that can be summarized as part of the block chain are partially decentralized, but the users of the IM or the information distribution mechanism are completely decentralized, but once the model is poorly designed, the incentives for this type of product are more difficult to generate positive social feedback and easier to produce user-painting behaviour.

第三，可能是链上的token。其实它是一个很原生的Web3.0场景，是token形式不是社交产品，但是因为它的使用场景，大家把它当做是自己在Web3.0或者链上自建的名字。

Third, it could be token on the chain. It's actually a very original Web3.0 scene, which is not a social product, but because of its use, people think of it as their own name on the web3.0 or the chain.

所以大致可以分为这三类。一是彻底颠覆的Web3.0社交协议，二是产品有一部分在链上，可能这一类可以叫它Web2.5，三是token或者ENS等等，它的应用场景和搜索有关。

So there are basically three categories. The first is a totally subversive Web3.0 social protocol, the second is that a part of the product is on the chain, and perhaps it can be called Web2.5, the third is token or ENS, etc., and its application is related to the search.

从目前Web3.0社交而言，还真的没有看到可以引爆市场的平台或者一款产品，因为我仔细研究过里面内容，发现Web3.0信息还是存在一些严重的问题，比如看到大部分信息是自动产生，比如说交易，NFT的买卖，大部分这类信息的可读性还比较差，所以很多是交易信息。第二种是很多平台用户量还是比较少，大家写出来的东西或者创造出来的内容的吸引力也不太够，所以它的信息并没有为消费者而服务，还有第三个问题是存储与分发也比较困难。数据分布在不同的链上，我们如果从做应用层角度去看，获取数据的难度就会比较高，因为要适配非常多的链，所以我觉得从信息角度现在还是没有办法出来一个颠覆性的应用，把Web3.0技术带到现在的平台中。

From the current Web3.0 social context, it is true that there are no platforms or products that can trigger the market, because I have studied the contents carefully and found that there are serious problems with Web3.0 messages, such as seeing that most of the information is generated automatically, such as transactions, NFT transactions, and that most of the information is less readable, so much of it is trade information. The second is that many platforms have less or less users, and there is less appeal to what you write or create, so the information is not available to consumers, and the third is that storage and distribution is more difficult. Data are distributed on different chains, and if we look at them from an application level, it is more difficult to get data, because there are a lot of chains to match, so I think there is still no way from the point of view of information to bring Web3.0 technology to the current platform.

我觉得从引导用户迁移到Web3.0角度来看，有两个机会：

I think there are two opportunities from the point of view of guiding users to move to Web3.0:

第一，像刚才讨论的已经有流量平台它自己思考如何和Web3.0融合，这一定是一个趋势，下一轮叙事很明显就是从Web2到Web3，这个过程有可能还会伴随着下一波流失的整个过程，并且到达顶峰。

First, there is a trend, as discussed earlier, of the flow platform itself thinking about how to integrate with Web3.0, and it is clear that the next round of narratives is from Web2 to Web3, a process that is likely to be accompanied by the next wave of loss and reach its peak.

因为给Web3.0场景赋能的话，可以给Web3.0带来大量的新用户注意力，相信除了Twitter还会有更多的平台往这方面做。如果像我们这样的新平台，还是要立足于解决用户新的社交需求。因为现在用户发布信息在Twitter，社区管理也都在，用户很难使用一款新的产品，所以我个人比较看好的产品是，它可以解决Web3.0用户社交需求的产品，解决Web3.0用户在实际中遇到的问题。因为现有产品没有办法满足，虽然可能一开始是找群体，但是一旦这个场景被广泛接受，那它就有可能变成新的平台。

Because empowering Web3.0 scenes can bring a lot of new user attention to Web3.0, believing that there will be more platforms than Twitter to do. If a new platform like ours is based on addressing the new social needs of users. Because now users publish information on Twitter, and community management is everywhere, it is difficult for users to use a new product, so my personal preferred product is that it can address the social needs of Web3.0 users and the actual problems of Web3.0 users. Because there is no way to meet the existing product, although it may be a group at the outset, it may turn into a new platform once the scene is widely accepted.

举个例子，比如用户的钱包其实代表他的身份，用户登录就可以给我们提供一个信息量很大的帐号，作为这个社区的管理者，可能可以根据用户钱包里的东西来决定谁可以进入他们的社区，像这样把社区管理和链上资产结合，来解锁一些社交新体验，将来其实用户钱包里除了现在的token和NFT以外，可能还会有更多链上的东西。我相信可以打造出更多有趣的社区体验或者信息推荐。像我们bfrenz也会读取用户钱包里的信息，像NFT还有更多越来越多的信息给用户进行信息推荐，帮助用户更好地获取资讯，下一步也可以帮用户更好地连接Web3.0世界里的其他人。

By way of example, for example, the user’s wallet actually represents his identity, and the user’s login can provide us with an account with a large amount of information. As the manager of this community, it may be possible to determine who can enter their community on the basis of what is in the user’s wallet, so that community management and the assets on the chain can be combined to unlock some new social experiences, and in the future there may be more on the chain than the current token and NFT. I believe that more interesting community experiences or information can be created. As we bfrenz can also read the information in the user’s wallet, and more and more information is available to users, like NFT, to help users to better access information, and the next step could be to better connect users to others in the Web3.0 world.

主持人：谢谢Kent的分享，他把Web3.0现在的社交分成几个类别，有原生的还有提的比较多的Web2.5。讲到这个领域，这里也有一位非常资深的产品经理，他也曾经在鹅厂带领过千万级产品，现在也在做Web3.0领域的事情，他创立了一个道叫2dao3，也请twinx为我们分享一下是不是所有的Web2.0社交平台，都需要向Web3.0转型？适合转型的平台会有哪些特征？

Moderator: Thank you, Kent, for sharing, for dividing the socialization of Web3.0 now into several categories, with the originals and the more numerous Web2.5. Speaking of this area, there is also a very senior product manager who once led tens of thousands of levels of products at the Goose Factory, who is now also working in the Web3.0 area. He created a 2dao3, and asked twinx to share with us all the features of the Web2.0 social platform that would need to be transformed to Web3.0. What would be the characteristics of a platform fit for transformation?

twinx：谢谢主持人，今天参与到讨论当中来，发现很多小伙伴在讲协议层的事情，我个人对于协议层感触还是很深，因为有一次和很多小伙伴讨论，当年也做社交产品，是手机QQ的社交模块，那个模块本来也有千万级别的用户，那个时候我们会去讨论用户注册、日活、消息量、互动数等等，后来我们说在Web3.0里大家讨论社交都是讨论灵魂、身份这些内容，我觉得是巨大的不同，但是非常有意思。

twinx: Thank you, the moderator, for your participation in today's discussion, for finding that there are a lot of small partners talking about the protocol level, and for my personal feelings about the protocol level, because there was one discussion with a lot of small partners, and it was also a social product, a social module for mobile QQ, which had tens of millions of levels of users, at which time we were going to discuss user registration, daily work, volume of information, number of interactions, and so on, and then we said in Web3.0 that social discussions were about the soul, identity and so on, and I thought it was a great difference, but it was very interesting.

我两边都做了，所以都能理解。今天想讲的第一个点是我们现在进展到什么样的阶段？目前的阶段其实是，整个Web3.0已经在第一轮里把基础设施做好了，我们现在从基础设施底层链往上去走，往上走时是协议层的东西，会更加丰富地对应到应用层阶段。

I did it on both sides, so I can understand it. The first thing I want to say today is what stage we're going to make. The current stage is actually that the whole Web3.0 has built infrastructure in the first round, and we're going up from the bottom of the infrastructure chain to the bottom of the protocol, and it's going up to the application level, and it's going to be much richer.

第二点可以看到很多应用层开始尝试爆发，趋势就是可能某种意义上一个对用户价值交互特别好的应用层，会带来很大的用户流量。这个点其实我们处在的是什么阶段呢？协议层上还需要不断地和组合扩展，第二是在应用层上花多一些力气，把价值交互到用户手上。

The second point is that many layers of application are beginning to explode, and the trend is that there may be a certain degree of interactivity of a particularly good layer of user values, with a large flow of users. What is the stage at which this is actually going on? The protocol layer needs to be constantly expanded and combined, and the second is to spend more energy on the application layer and to interact values with users.

第二个阶段今天大家都讲了，协议层。原来做Web2.0时比较擅长或者比较喜欢讲的叫“场景层”的东西。场景层要引源一位朋友，他是原来PC机创造营的社交产品经理叫Bacy，我们曾经比较深度地讨论了一下原来传统Web2.0的社交是怎么起来的。刚才suji讲了整个历史，我觉得再往前一点，比如说当年在1998年到2002年之间，Web2.0市场上最早出现的社交就是手Q。手Q当年怎么起来的？因为整个互联网刚刚出来时，在没有什么软件可以提供即时通讯的情况下，手Q提供了即时通讯能力，并且把它本土化了。所以我们发现手Q迅速膨胀开来，这就代表一件事情，当时的手Q提供了巨大的供给，再就是在巨大的需求量没有被满足的情况下，这个供给就做起来了，这就是手Q的发家过程。

The second stage is today, the protocol floor. The first thing that we used to be good at or preferred to talk about at Web 2.0 is what's called the "scene layer." The scenery is about a friend of mine, Bacy, the social product manager of the former PC creative camp, and we discussed in some depth how the socialization of the old Web 2.0 was going to go up. So, just now, Suji spoke about history, and I think the first social interaction in the Web 2.0 market between 1998 and 2002 was Hand Q. How did Hand Q get up in the year? Because when the entire Internet came out, hand Q provided instant communication in the absence of any software that could provide instantaneous communication, and it homegrown it. So we found that hand Q was growing rapidly, and that represented a huge supply, and that was then provided in the event that huge needs were not met, and that was the process of Q's hairrs.

整个Web2.0历史，我们会发现先有了社交，其次会有内容，再次有了社群。这整个阶段是分三步走来的，社交从手Q当年是陌生人社交转换到了熟人社交，这是社交群，后来我们开始有内容。为什么内容非常非常重要？其实我和Bacy讨论时他提到，内容、社交、社群这三个点，在整个社交领域里是完全不可分拆的三个点，它们有很长的耦合性。

Throughout the history of Web 2.0, we find that there is first socialization, and then content, and again community. This stage is three steps, from the socialization of strangers in hand Q to the socialization of acquaintances, which is the social group, and then we start to have content. Why is the content very important? In my discussions with Bacy, he mentioned that the three points of content, socialization, and community are totally inseparable, and they have a long combination.

为什么这么说，刚才提到了Web2.0社交，然后到了内容什么时候爆发比如像猫扑论坛、天涯论坛包括后面的豆瓣社区。其实我们看到内容已经逐步产生了，社交已经有稳定供给的情况下，我们需要更多的内容去做娱乐性消费，所以出现了大量的内容社群。内容完成了供给之后，我们看到出现了小众内容的社群，比如说百度贴吧、豆瓣。它们进一步细分到社群概念里，这是Web2.0整个社交赛道的发展历史。

When we see content coming out, we need more content for recreational consumption. When the content is supplied, we see communities of small content, such as 100-degrees and bean petals. They are further broken down into the community concept, which is the history of Web 2.0's entire social track.

当我们反过来看Web3.0时，其实我个人包括我们讨论完之后，我觉得理出来一个可能性也只是代表一种可能性，Web3.0的社交赛道可能是反过来发展，也就是Web3.0赛道现在已经有了大量的社群，这个社群有非常多的用户在其中进行贡献，他们的贡献能够获得token收益，所以这个社群已经相对比较稳定。

When we look back at Web3.0, I personally, after we've discussed it, think that one possibility is just one, and that the Web3.0 social track may have developed in turn, that is, the Web3.0 track now has a large community in which a very large number of users contribute, and whose contribution can yield totoken benefits, so the community has become relatively stable.

其次，我们发现Web3.0上内容领域比较有欠缺，因为内容这个东西是当你有足够的人进来之后需要去交汇内容，内容在Web3.0里看到这个赛道供给还不太足，需要创造大量的供给。如果在大量的供给完成之后，可能才会过渡到第三个点就是社交。

Secondly, we find that the content area on Web3.0 is less adequate, because the content is that when you have enough people to come in, you have to meet the content, and it is not enough to see this track supply in Web3.0, and it needs to create a lot of supplies. If the supply is finished, then the third point is social.

我个人观点认为社交在Web3.0里是一个城市的概念，如果大家都认为Web3.0是“闹革命”的话，以革命通常的两种打法，一种是城市包围农村，二是农村包围城市，现在看来Web3.0里，如果“闹革命”大概率可能是要农村包围城市，先把其他几个赛道做好，再来做社交，我觉得可能会更容易一些。它可能会诞生新的产品形态，而不是像现在一样叫做即时通讯领域。

My personal view is that socialization is a concept of a city in Web3.0, and if everyone thinks that Web3.0 is a “revolution”, it may be easier to create a new form of product rather than an instant communication area, as it is now called.

我们可以预见下一次的牛市可能会出现百万级日活的产品。它的月活应该要上千万甚至上亿，如果这样的产品出现的话，我们可以想象出一件事情，就是它做什么都会是最大的。比如说，可以做NFT的交易市场，可以去做即时通讯工具，可以去做交易所，做钱包，做任何想做的事情，这就是Web2.0流量模型过渡到Web3.0之后可能会发生的事情。所以suji刚才提到的，比如Twitter如果协议化之后，它会成为千亿级的公司，我非常地赞同，因为极有可能在下一轮牛市时，我们面对一个千亿级别或者说百万级别日活产品时，它的估值就应该往上走，而且更不用说它是一个如此开放灵活的生态。

We can foresee that the next cow market may have a million-grade daily product. It should have a million or even hundreds of millions of dollars. If it were to happen, one thing we could imagine is that it would be the biggest. For example, it could be the NFT trading market, it could be an instant communication tool, it could be an exchange, it could be a wallet, and it could do anything that might happen after the transition from the Web 2.0 flow model to Web3.0. So what Suji just mentioned, for example, if Twitter were to become a multi-billion-grade company, I very much agree, because when it comes to the next round of cattle, it is highly likely that when we face a billion or millions of daily living products, its valuation should go up, not to mention that it is such an open and flexible ecosystem.

所以个人非常期待看到Web3.0整个社交领域带来和Web3.0不一样的东西，所以回到主持人的问题，我认为在远景看来，几乎所有的社交软件都会往Web3.0方向靠一靠，因为它一定会带来对于用户价值塑造很大的不同，因为它的底层就像我们一开始说的，都会去讨论用户注册，但是现在大家底层都会去讲我的身份，它更贴合于人性，更贴合于我自己的资产，这个会是符合用户的部分。

So the individual very much looks forward to seeing the whole social area of Web3.0 bring something different from Web3.0, so back to the facilitator's question, and I think that, from a perspective, almost all of the social software will lean towards Web3.0, because it will bring about a great difference in the value of the user, because, as we said at the beginning, it will discuss the user's registration, but now everyone at the bottom will talk about my identity, and it's more human and more personal, and it's more my own asset, and it's the user's part.

但是也有可能，有一部分普通用户甚至是高净值用户未必会接触需要那么多模块化的趋势，就像我们现在用手机一样，用苹果手机也会用安卓手机，苹果手机给我们创造了最大的用户体验，它不需要那么多的开放性，而安卓手机会给我们创造很大的开放性，但是它的安全性可能会担忧，所以用户群总是有自己的选择，可能只是一个小数和多数的分别，这就是我的回答。

But it is also possible that some general users, even high net users, may not necessarily be exposed to the need for so many modularizations, as is the case with our mobile phones, where the Apple phone creates the greatest user experience for us, which does not require so much openness, and the Andre handsport opportunities which create a great deal of openness for us, but whose safety may be a concern, so the user community always has its own choice, probably just a small number and a majority difference, which is my answer.

主持人：谢谢twinx，现在Web2.0产品尤其社交产品可能更多追求用户数和网络效应，但是Web3.0其实每个产品都可以打开不同的用户价值维度。所以现有产品都是有动力去转型，最后一个问题其实也是想请大家开一下脑洞，Web3.0最终形态是怎样的？之前很多位嘉宾都提到了城市和国家的类比概念。我们这个问题有请metaforo的创始人yao来给我们分享一下，其他的嘉宾也可以补充。

Moderator: Thank you twinx. Web 2.0 products, especially social products, may now pursue more user numbers and network effects, but Web3.0 can actually open a different user value dimension for each product. So the current product is dynamic to transform, and the last question is what the final form of Web3.0 is. Many previous guests have mentioned the concept of city-to-country analogues. We have asked Yao, the founder of Metaforo, to share it with us, and other guests can add it.

yao：主持人好，关于Web3.0社交内容是什么形态，其实这是一个非常非常难以预测的问题，但是我可以从自己的产品经历简单说一下自己的想法。

Yao: Hello, host, about the shape of the Web3.0 social content, which is a very, very difficult question to predict, but I can say a few words from my own product experience.

刚才很多嘉宾都提到在互联网早期时代，社交是一个匿名社交，就像QQ或者论坛，慢慢地从Web1的匿名社交转到Web2.0的实名社交，就像Instagram或者Facebook。我们看到，到Web3.0时代之后，整个社交又慢慢转回了匿名社交，大家用钱包作为自己的登陆工具，在钱包上生成各种各样的DID作为自己的帐户。最终把自己在面上获得的所有资产以及内容和成就，全部放到自己的帐户下，但是谁也不知道这个钱包之后是什么样的人，不会像Web2.0时代的Facebook一样，大家每天分享自己在做瑜伽或者吃了什么好东西。

In the early days of the Internet, many of the guests mentioned that socialization was an anonymous socialization, like QQ or a forum, slowly moving from the anonymous socialization of Web1 to the real socialization of Web 2.0, like Instagram or Facebook. We saw that, after the Web3.0, the whole socialization slowly turned back to anonymous socialization, with wallets being used as their own landing tools, generating a variety of DDs on their wallets as their own accounts. Eventually, all the assets and content and achievements they acquired face-to-face were put under their accounts, but who did not know what they were after the wallet, would not share every day what they were doing yoga or what they ate.

Web3.0时代的社交更加倾向于匿名，然后Web3.0社交与Web2.0还有一点很大的区别，它其实是一个开放性社交模式，不像Web2.0时代一样。比如Facebook其实是一个圈，Twitter是另外一个圈，每个圈都把自己的圈和内容控制在圈里，它们中间互相没有办法交互，比如有人在Twitter上是一个大V或是一个KOL，当他去到别的软件要重新build自己的声望和背景。但是在Web3.0时代里，我认为reputation（声誉）应该可以跟着用户走。

The socialization of the Web3.0 era is more anonymous, and then there is a big difference between Web3.0 and Web 2.0, which is actually an open social model, not like the Web 2.0. Facebook is actually a circle, Twitter is another circle, and each circle has its own circle and content in it, and there is no way to interact with each other, for example, someone on Twitter is a big V or a KOL, and when he goes to other software to build up his reputation and background. But in Web3.0 I think that reputation should be able to follow the user.

我觉得Web3.0的社交可能会有多种多种不一样的形式，可以从三个点来看这个问题：

I think the socialization of Web3.0 can take many different forms, and this can be seen in three ways:

第一，Web3.0的社交首先数据所有权和Web2.0不一样。Web3.0的数据所有权分两种：一是数据属于用户所有，比如用户的DID归他所有，他自己所创造的内容是在自己帐户之下，所获得的NFT在自己钱包之下，在不同平台上获得各种各样奖励和徽章都在自己帐户之下，很多数据应该由用户所有，而不是归平台所有。

First, Web3.0 has a different social first-data ownership than Web 2.0. Web3.0 has two types of data ownership: one is that the data is owned by the user, such as the user's DD, he owns the content he created under his own account, the NFT obtained under his own purse, the various rewards and badges obtained on different platforms are under his own account, and much of the data should be owned by the user rather than by the platform.

第二，很多数据应该是公共的，甚至都不会归用户所有，就像mirror就是一个很好的例子，当mirror上的内容被创作出来之后，这个数据其实是一个公共数据，因为它存在album上面，所以被篡改也不属于任何人，我觉得这是Web3.0一个很大的特点，就是它的数据所有权和Web2.0完全不一样。

Secondly, much of the data should be public and not even owned by users, just as Mirror is a good example, and when the content on Mirror is written, it is a public data, because it exists on album, so that it is not anybody's, and I think it is a big feature of Web3.0 that its ownership of the data is completely different from Web 2.0.

更重要的一点，是Web2.0花了十年把信息传导的便利性做到极致。但是Web2.0有一个很大的问题或者说它始终没有摆脱的问题，是最终创造价值都通过流量。通过流量的话，Web2.0各种平台最终会做到流量为王。所以我们觉得Web3.0和Web2.0很大的区别，Web3.0是价值网络。

More importantly, Web 2.0 took ten years to make the transmission of information extremely convenient. But Web 2.0 has a big problem, or one that it has never escaped, and it is the ultimate creation of value through the flow. Through the flow, Web 2.0 platforms will eventually be the best. So we think that there is a big difference between Web3.0 and Web 2.0, and Web3.0 is a value network.

Web2.0把信息传导成本降到零，Web3.0时代大家把资产传导成本降到零，其实可以放大很多可能性。就是说Web3.0的社交平台，应该是一个可以承载价值的平台，它不需要像Web2.0一样有十亿级或者几亿级用户，才能成为一个伟大的公司，它可能只需要Web2.0时代10%或者20%的用户，就足够成为一个伟大的公司。

Web2.0 Reduces the cost of transmitting information to zero, and Web3.0 reduces the cost of transmitting assets to zero, which actually magnifies many possibilities. The Web3.0 social platform should be a platform for carrying values, and it does not need one billion or hundreds of millions of users like Web 2.0 to become a great company, and it may take only 10 or 20% of Web 2.0 users to become a great company.

举个简单的例子，现在很多的项目都是通过社区化运营，都是用Dao的方式运作。其实各种沟通模式就是通过各种社交的平台进行沟通，包括像telegram、论坛本身等等。为什么dao可以在成员都是匿名以及分布的情况下运作这样一个serious business，运作一个可能价值几百亿美元的协议？因为他们利用Web3.0的特性，可以很快速地在分布式的情况下，可以不依靠银行的情况下，构建出财务和自理系统。他们利用他们的“国库”作为财务系统，利用投票机制作为治理系统，这是Web3.0很大的变化。

To give a simple example, many of the projects now operate through community-based operations, operating in Dao's way. In fact, the various modes of communication are communication through social platforms, including telegrams, forums themselves, etc. Why can Dao operate a multi-billion-dollar agreement with anonymous members and distribution? They use Web3.0 features to build financial and self-management systems very quickly without banks. They use their “state treasury” as a financial system, using voting mechanisms as a governance system, which is a big change in Web3.0.

Web3.0的社交可能可以承载比Web2.0更多的价值，也就是未来也许我们会看到很多以前只能发生在线下的商业行为，可以迅速地搬到线上。这其实也就是为什么过去这一年，各种dao组织在全球各地发展得很好。因为dao组织可以很符合Web3.0的企业，Web3.0的社交其实可以是服务于这些dao组织为起点，因为他们需要社交产品是一个分布式的组织形式，他们是Web3.0native，并且他们本身就蕴含了大量价值。

Web3.0 socialization may carry more value than Web 2.0, which is that in the future we may see a lot of business that was only available on-line and could move quickly. That is why, over the past year, various Dao organizations have developed well around the globe. Because Dao organizations can be very compatible with Web3.0, Web 3.0 socialization can actually be the starting point for these dao organizations, because they need social products as a distributed form of organization, and they are Web3.0native, and they have a lot of value in themselves.

我觉得Web3.0的社交还有更大一点的特点，就是其实Web3.0社交人的声望其实是跨平台的，不管在任何dao组织里或者任何社交平台上面获得的东西，应该是跟着用户走的。比如说假设一个用户在Twitter上面有了十万粉丝，他到Facebook需要重建整个声望。这在Web3.0平台是一个很容易的事情，Web3.0的平台是更加可组合性平台，就是不同的社交平台之间，其实没有那么多信息边界，而是一个相互融合的状态，可能平台之间的数据和内容与用户是会将交互在一起，不像现在每一个公司或者组织都有自己的产品。

I think the socialization of Web3.0 is a much larger feature of the fact that the reputation of the Web3.0 socialists is actually cross-platform, regardless of what is acquired in any Dao organization or on any social platform, and should follow the user. For example, assuming that a user has 100,000 followers on Twitter, he needs to rebuild his entire reputation on Facebook. This is an easy thing at Web3.0. The Web3.0 platform is a more combinable platform, a platform between different social platforms, but rather a state of integration, where data and content are likely to interact with users, unlike every company or organization now has its own product.

Web3.0时代，应该是很多社交平台一起来帮助用户构建他的内容，是反过来的，可能就是三五个或者七八个不同的社交协议，或者社交平台一起来构建一个用户的内容，并挂在用户的帐户底下，而不像现在是一个完全分割的状态。

In the Web3.0 era, there should be social platforms to help users build their content, possibly three or five or seven or eight different social agreements, or social platforms to build a user's content and hang it under a user's account, rather than being a completely fragmented state.

Tim：我补充一下，关于最终形态会是什么样子，这个确实很难讲，但是刚才像Kent其实给了一些很好的启发。

Tim: Let me add, it's really hard to say what the final shape is, but just now, like Kent, has given some good inspiration.

首先，无论是什么样的，一定不是基于某一条公链实现，因为你无法要求一个用户真的去管理，无论现在以太坊这么主流，说实话我们没有能力也没有资格要求用户必须管理好以太坊的私钥。所以，我觉得它一定不是基于某一条公链，一定是能跨出公链，而且不光是跨公链，因为跨公链还是在Web3.0的场景里，我觉得它可能在Web2.0世界里还可以使用，所以它本身要跨过Web2.0和Web3.0。

First, whatever it is, it must not be based on a public chain, because you can't ask a user to actually manage it, whether it's so mainstream now or whether we have the capacity or the ability to ask the user to manage it properly. So, I think it must not be based on a public chain, it must be able to cross it, not just the public chain, because it can be used in the Web 2.0 world, and so it has to cross Web2.0 and Web3.0 itself.

最终的形态到底是什么？刚才Kent讲了一点我觉得非常好，或许Web3.0社交最终不是一个产品，我们今天大家在讲Web3.0的社交产品，它有没有可能不是社交产品呢？以往的社交产品我们想到聊天，发Twitter发微博，但是它有可能Web3.0的社交只是在现有的Web2.0社交基础上叠加了一层，这一层是什么？可能是我称之为“社交货币”的东西。这是一个脑洞，就是可能我们Web3.0不会创造新的平台，反而是创造新的社交货币。比如说token它就是新的社交货币，它可以让我在线下事业中有某个东西就是比你牛，比如我有个“猴子”就比你牛。这些可以让我在一些无论线下还是线上的社交场合中，展示出与众不同之处，让我成为焦点，我们称之为“社交货币”。

What's the final shape? Kent just said a little bit, and I think it's great that maybe Web3.0 society is not a product, and we're all talking about Web3.0 social products today. Is it possible that it isn't a social product? Past social products we thought about chatting and tweeting and tweeting, but it's possible that Web3.0 socialization is just a layer built on the existing Web 2.0 social society. What is this layer? It's probably what I call a "social currency." It's a brain hole, or maybe we're not creating a new platform. It's a social currency.

我觉得任何社交首先是帮助人们建立新的联系，构建新连接，这是聊天工具和Twitter这样的开放广场所达成的。有新的联系之后，会形成新的社会结构。在微博上从以前一个平民百姓会成为一个大V，短视频上以前默默无闻的人，可能变成超级的博主，有很多粉丝能影响很多人，最终形成新的社会结构。而这种新的社会结构，如果Web3.0做社交的话，可能也是去帮助现有的Web2.0产品形成新的社会结构。

I think that any socialization, first of all, helps people to build new connections, which are created by open squares like chat tools and Twitter. New connections will result in new social structures. A civilian would become a big V. On microblogging, a previously invisible person on short videos could become a superb blogger, with many fans influencing many people and eventually forming new social structures.

它的方式具体是产生了新的社交货币，这种货币我们已经看到了：NFT、DID、名字、SBT。我个人其实非常看好这个东西，因为它是对我过去个人成就的一种记录。比如我们可能未来有个岛，这个岛里我是这个技术工会的负责人，我从哪一年到哪一年负责了这个技术工会，这个标签永远贴在我五个身上，会让我在其他社交场合，无论是线下的还是线上的，都会显得与众不同。

In particular, it has produced a new social currency, which we have seen: NFT, CID, name, SBT. I personally look very good at this thing, because it is a record of my past personal achievements. For example, we may have an island in the future, and I am in charge of this technical union from one year to the next, and this label will always be on me five, and it will make me look different in other social settings, whether on the line or on the line.

所以这个东西SBT的发行，包括NFT、DID的发行，都要基于我们所说的区块链实现。中心化系统是实现不了，所以我提供一个想法，我们可能要从谈Web3.0社交到底是什么样子，换另外一个角度，叫Web2.0的社交怎么样Web3.0化。我一直觉得我们没必要在这里再造一遍，相反怎么让Twitter这些更具Web3.0属性。我的Web3.0资产如何在Web2.0平台上很好地展示出来，如果是这样一个思路的话，这里面可能创业方向是去做资产的发行，去创造新的社交货币，赋予给现实中各种各样的人。

So the distribution of this stuff, including NFT and ID, is based on what we call the block chain. The centralization system is not possible, so I offer the idea that we might want to talk about what Web 3.0 is, in another way, how Web 2.0 is going to be. I've always thought that we don't need to recreate it here, but rather how to make Twitter more Web3.0 properties. How my Web3.0 assets are well displayed on Web 2.0 platforms, and if so, it might be in the direction of starting a business by doing the distribution of assets, creating new social money and giving it to a variety of people in the real world.

另外一种思路是说，已经有了这些社交货币了之后，你怎么把它搬到现有的Web2.0社交平台上，在上面做些插件就可以让你展示NFT。其实你会发现Web2.0的大公司和Web3.0创业公司都可能在做这件事情，就是把Web2.0品牌逐渐Web3.0化，在它上面叠加一层社交货币，产生新的社会结构，这可能是一种思路。

The other idea is, how do you move these social moneys to the existing Web 2.0 social platform, where you can show NFTs with some plugs? In fact, you can see that both Web 2.0 big companies and Web3.0 start-ups are likely to do this thing, which is to move the Web 2.0 brand over time, adding a layer of social money to it, creating a new social structure, which might be one idea.

主持人：我非常同意你的观点，其实刚才嘉宾的分享也是类似。我们说Web3.0社交时，到底在说什么？它未必是我们理解的一个产品，有可能就是创造了新的价值维度，或是刚才Tim讲的新的社交货币。

Moderator: I very much agree with you, but the sharing of guests is similar. What are we talking about when we say Web3.0? It's not necessarily a product that we understand, it's probably creating a new dimension of value, or the new social currency that Tim just talked about.

由于时间关系，可能不能更加展开讨论，每位嘉宾都发表了很多精彩观点，从Web3.0社交世界观，到方法论，到产业生态和发展路径，都已经展开了比较充分的讨论。我们知道，Web3.0行业和Web2.0也有比较大的区别，是Web3.0用户也都可以参与治理，用户也是利益相关者。可能你是想要进入Web3.0的创业者，或者是未来Web3.0的产品用户，我们所有人有机会一起去共同塑造Web3.0的未来。再次感谢今天分享的各位嘉宾，下次有机会我们继续聊，谢谢大家！

Because of the timing, it may not be possible to have more discussion, and every guest has made a lot of good points, ranging from the Web3.0 social world view, to methodology, to industry ecology and development paths, to a much more thorough discussion. We know that the Web3.0 industry and Web 2.0 are also quite different, and that both Web3.0 users can be involved in governance and stakeholders. Perhaps you are the entrepreneurs who want to enter Web3.0 or the future Web3.0 product users, and we all have the opportunity to come together to shape the Web3.0 future. Again, thanks to the guests who shared today, we will continue our conversation next time. Thank you!