Mask Network's $5M Deal: Freedom or False Hope for Web3?

Is true decentralization a pipe dream? In policy and tech circles, it gets thrown around like confetti at a crypto conference. Is there really such thing as decentralization when the Blackrocks of the world begin investing hundreds of millions into these protocols? The $5 million that DWF Labs just dumped into Mask Network has me really worried. Are we actually building a user-owned internet, or are we just copying the same power structures in a new way and putting a Web3 paint job on it?

Web2.5: Compromise Or Trojan Horse?

Mask Network's angle is interesting: bridging the gap between Web2 and Web3. Encrypted messaging, NFT creation, DeFi access straight from your Twitter timeline – pretty cool, huh? On paper, it significantly lowers the barrier to entry for the average user. Is it actually giving users power over their choices? Or are we just preparing them to be at ease with a more decentralized but still familiar and outdated game? Think of it like this: is it actually freedom, or just a gilded cage?

These days, I feel like I’m back in the early days of the internet. You know that hopeful time in the early web when we all thought the web would be this great democratizing force, an open field of information and connection? And now? Compare that to today’s landscape, where just a few tech giants control the vast majority of what we see, read, and do online. Might Mask Network, for all of its good intentions, be unknowingly opening the door for the same kind of dynamic to take hold in the Web3 space?

Investment: Decentralization's Silent Killer?

DWF Labs calls this a "strategic investment," aiming to "push decentralized social media into the mainstream." Okay, but let's be real: $5 million isn't charity. They want a return, and that return will necessarily impact Mask Network’s future growth and trajectory. Will that external influence have us fighting for user freedom, or to protect investor profits?

Here's where my skepticism kicks in. So how do we make sure decentralization is genuine when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake? It feels like a fundamental contradiction. You can’t, for example, say that you are building a user-owned internet if in the background you are having to answer to the demands of venture capitalists. This isn’t to imply that investment is always a bad thing, but it requires a deeper look. We should be questioning these problematic governance arrangements, lack of transparency, and the long-term consequences of these deeply financial partnerships.

• Does the investment align with the core tenants of decentralization?
• What are the KPIs of the investors?
• How does the investment impact the user base?

Hacking: Red Flag For Trust?

Then there's the elephant in the room: Suji Yan, Mask Network's founder, got hacked. And we’re not talking about only got somewhat hacked – over $4 million in cryptocurrency disappeared. This came despite the fact that Mask Network had already raised over $75 million in funding.

Let's be blunt: that's not a good look. If true, this raises serious questions about the platform’s security infrastructure and its overall preparedness for mainstream adoption. If the creator of a leading Web3 platform is this easily compromised, what hope do individual users have?

It's easy to dismiss this as an isolated incident, but it highlights a broader problem in the crypto space: security is often an afterthought. We’re so enamored with the idea of innovating and disrupting that we skip laying the groundwork. The hacking incident was a personal tragedy for Yan. It’s inauspicious as a canary indicator for the rest of the Web3 ecosystem. The price surge that followed the DWF Labs announcement now feels exceedingly tone-deaf in the shadow of this significant security breach. In other words, are we pushing innovation at the expense of security and user safety?

Beyond this particular incident, the unfolding situation demands a thorough investigation into Mask Network’s security practices and a wider industry standard for securing user assets. It exposes a larger issue around the education and awareness of crypto security best practices.

Whose Freedom Are We REALLY Building?

At the end of the day, what happens isn’t really a question of Mask Network’s tech or its investment thesis. Central to that discussion is who gets to benefit from this new iteration of the internet. So, are we really making the digital world more equitable and inclusive? Or are we only recreating the same power dynamics under a new guise with a different set of players?

Instead, we need to be careful of the possibility for Web3 to increase inequalities that are already deeply entrenched. In addition, access to these technologies involves a certain level of technical literacy and financial resources. If we’re not intentional about this work, we can create an even larger digital divide. This would effectively limit access to the decentralized revolution only to the privileged few who can afford it.

If used responsibly, Mask Network can truly be the force for good! It further empowers users and knowledge creators, and contributes to a more democratic global internet. Keep a healthy dose of skepticism as you take on this project. Never back away from your demands to hold its leaders accountable. Let’s insist on sunshine and put security first. Whatever happens, it’s key that all of us are able to benefit from Web3, and not just the early insiders.

The road to hell is paved by enthusiasm about decentralization. Together, let’s create a Web3 that actually reflects its promise.