The previous chapter took stock of the evidence — what can and cannot responsibly be claimed about Web3 as it actually exists. This chapter looks forward, but it does so under a strict discipline. A scholarly work cannot predict the future of a contested technology, and any author who claims to is selling something. What a scholarly work can do is lay out the small number of structurally distinct trajectories the evidence makes plausible, weigh how much each is supported, and then name the genuine open questions that will determine which trajectory prevails. This chapter therefore offers scenarios, not predictions, and then a map of the frontier of inquiry — the unresolved problems where serious research, rather than advocacy, is most needed.
In plain terms: nobody knows what happens to Web3 next. Instead of guessing, this chapter describes four different shapes the future could take, says how much current evidence backs each one, and then lists the honest open questions whose answers will decide which shape we get.
A word on method. A scenario, in the sense used here, is a disciplined description of a coherent possible future — internally consistent, anchored to present-day evidence, and explicitly conditional ("if these forces dominate, then…"). It is closer to the practice of scenario planning used in strategy and climate work than to forecasting: the aim is not to assign a probability but to clarify what each future would require, and what would count as early evidence of it (see Chapter 33 on the state of the evidence). The four scenarios below are not mutually exclusive — the real future will likely blend them, and different regions and sectors may follow different paths at once — but separating them clarifies the stakes.
In plain terms
nobody knows what happens to Web3 next. Instead of guessing, this chapter describes four different shapes the future could take, says how much current evidence backs each one, and then lists the honest open questions whose answers will decide which shape we get.
instead of a separate, rebel financial system, the biggest existing financial firms are taking the useful part of the technology — a fast, programmable way to record who owns what — and using it to run their own products more efficiently. The token is kept; the dream of cutting the banks out is dropped.
the strongest signal in the data is that Web3's tools are winning while Web3's cause is losing. Banks, asset managers, and regulators are adopting tokens and shared ledgers — but to make the existing system faster, not to replace it. If this is the future, "Web3" becomes a back-office upgrade for Wall Street.
Web3 may end up like a specialized tool that most people never touch but that matters enormously to those who need it — a way to move or hold value that no government or company can switch off. Useful at the edges, ignored in the comfortable middle.
this is the future the believers promise — an internet where you really own your accounts, data, and money, and where most people actually live online this way. It is the least likely of the four on today's evidence, because the things it would require — an everyday non-money app people love, safe and simple key management, hundreds of millions of genuine users — mostly do not exist yet.
the fade scenario says Web3 mostly burns out — remembered like other manias as a period of speculation, scams, and theft that produced a few genuinely useful techniques and a lot of lost money, then faded from the center of attention.
these are not four doors, only one of which opens. They are four pressures pulling at once. The smart money on the evidence is "absorption plus a stubborn niche," but the other two outcomes remain live, and the columns above tell you what to monitor instead of what to assume.
the central open question is whether "decentralized" systems can stay decentralized once they get big and once people choose the easy option — or whether they always drift back toward a few powerful players. We genuinely do not yet know, and it is measurable.
AI agents paying each other with stablecoins is a real, early experiment that might matter; "blockchain proves what's human and what's real" is mostly a hope, not a working solution. The honest research question is which parts of the AI–Web3 story survive contact with adversaries — and that is wide open.
right now, truly owning your crypto means that one slip — a lost file, a fake website — can wipe you out forever, with no help line. Until someone makes self-custody as forgiving as a normal banking app without quietly putting a company back in charge, mass adoption of the user-owned web stays blocked. Nobody has yet shown it can be done.
What the chapter covers
- Scenario one: institutional absorption
- Scenario two: niche persistence
- Scenario three: genuine platform shift
- Scenario four: fade
- The scenarios compared
- Open research questions
- Synthesis
Terms explained in this chapter
The full chapter is in the book.
Buy the full book