Disclosure: The perspectives shared here are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of crypto.news’ editorial team.
Web3 frequently proclaims that everything is “on-chain.” In theory, this should simplify development, making it faster and more accessible than ever. However, the reality is a logistical challenge.
Summary
- While blockchain data is public, it remains largely unusable — developers must create custom backends and patch faulty tools rather than concentrating on their products.
- Unlike web2, where reliable infrastructure (AWS, Stripe, Firebase) “just works,” web3 compels teams to constantly rebuild fundamentals, discouraging serious enterprises.
- Large companies shun web3 due to its unreliability, lack of oversight, and absence of plug-and-play tools — whitepapers can’t substitute for service guarantees and monitoring.
- For web3 to grow, it must provide essential infrastructure: cross-chain standards, dependable services, and usability while maintaining decentralization.
Indeed, blockchain data is theoretically public. Nonetheless, that doesn’t guarantee its usability. Most data is organized in ways that are difficult to search or interpret unless the specific information is already known. Consequently, developers often must gather and structure that data themselves, working off-chain and depending on external services just to create basic functionalities. Even with some available tools, many teams end up constructing their own backends from scratch, diverting time and resources from product development.
This issue is more than just a nuisance; it’s a fundamental flaw. Without resolution, web3 will struggle to expand beyond enthusiasts and idealists.
In web2, infrastructure doesn’t obstruct
In web2, developers rely on stable and reliable tools (like AWS, Stripe, or Firebase). They don’t need to worry about service functionality; it generally just works. When issues arise, it’s noteworthy. The basic expectation is clear: things should function as intended.
Web3 fails to meet that reliability. The tools developers depend on frequently malfunction or yield inconsistent results based on data sources. This forces developers to devote time to problem-solving rather than app-building, managing their servers, and stitching together disparate systems, consuming more energy on maintenance than on product creation.
This isn’t progress; it’s lost productivity. In web2, developers can depend on solid foundational tools and focus on their actual products. Conversely, in web3, they often rebuild foundational elements from scratch. While this might suit hobbyists, it’s untenable for serious teams with clients, deadlines, and stakeholders.
Building on web3 still requires starting anew
The complications deepen. Even if blockchain data is ostensibly transparent, there’s no uniform method for accessing or understanding it. Fundamental concepts like “transaction” or “account” can vary widely across blockchains. There is no standardized interface, nor plug-and-play tools. Developers must navigate diverse differences independently, constructing bespoke code, patching together unreliable services, and starting afresh every time they deploy on a new chain.
As a result, most time and energy that should be directed toward product development is instead spent managing complexity. This inefficiency amounts to self-sabotage and serves as a significant deterrent for large enterprises.
Why enterprises hesitate
Enterprises aren’t inherently opposed to decentralization. Rather, they evaluate new technologies based on risk, cost, and return. Currently, web3 doesn’t offer a compelling case.
These organizations expect dependable systems, transparent oversight, and trustworthy tools to integrate with. Instead, they encounter an ecosystem filled with promising concepts but lacking the essential features required for large-scale operations. A whitepaper fails to assure them; they require tangible service guarantees, real-time oversight, and infrastructure that functions seamlessly without ongoing intervention.
Without matching web2’s day-to-day reliability and providing something innovative, most companies will choose to remain on the sidelines.
Web3 must simplify development without compromising its principles
This doesn’t imply that web3 must abandon its principles. However, it does need to mature. Decentralization can coexist with usability, but the delivery of infrastructure needs significant re-evaluation.
We require interfaces that operate across chains without bespoke adjustments. Services that are modular, adaptable, and avoid trapping teams within vendor-specific constraints. Developers should not need advanced blockchain expertise to extract valuable data; they should concentrate on product development instead of managing underlying systems.
Most teams cannot afford to specialize in infrastructure and should not have to. Web3 needs to provide a development experience that is unremarkable in the best sense: dependable, stable, and quick. If this isn’t achieved promptly, it risks losing its pivotal moment.
Miss this opportunity, miss the market
Web2 cloud platforms didn’t succeed merely because of their capabilities; they won due to their ease of use. Developers could launch services with a credit card and scale by modifying a few configuration lines rather than rewriting entire backends.
This simplicity came with trade-offs: vendor lock-in, opaque pricing, and centralized control. Web3 was meant to address these concerns, claiming to offer decentralized infrastructure with built-in resilience, shared ownership, and transparent regulations. Yet, rather than creating something radically different, much of the current landscape simply rebrands web2 approaches, adding a token layer on top.
The opportunity is right before us: decentralized infrastructure that is not only open but also functional. Systems that are reliable due to aligned incentives instead of corporate trust. Infrastructure that developers can collaborate with, not combat.
The window of opportunity is open, but it won’t last forever.
