My Web5, Your Web5

English General Discussion
1

I like the term Web5 because it finally gives me one word that carries a whole philosophy. CKB’s path diverges so far from the Ethereum/Solana mainstream that explaining it piecemeal becomes a losing game. Without a clear, different name, I’m forced to argue every knob and dial: why PoW not PoS, UTXO not accounts, off-chain not on-chain, verification not computation, channels not rollups, Nostr/ATProto not Celestia, and so on. Even if each point lands, people still walk away without a handle. Web5 is that handle—a compact wrapper for a set of values that show up everywhere in our system and app design. For non-tech audiences too, it’s clear Web5 > Web3 and different, no matter if they take it as a joke or not. Well, 10+ years ago many thought I was joking when I talked about how Bitcoin and Ethereum would change the world.

My Web5 is NOT Jack Dorsey’s Web5

We share similar ethos, but my Web5 is CKB-centered, not BTC-centered. Bitcoin’s existence created the industry and make the vocabulary possible; it also sets hard limits. As digital gold and a SoV, BTC is perfect. As a substrate for the rest of the stack, it asks the wrong engine to haul the wrong load. I believe CKB is where those Web5 ideas actually land. In my model, Bitcoin anchors basic values; CKB carries identity, assets, programmability, and everyday payments—the parts that need flexibility without sacrificing decentralization.

My Web5 looks like did:web5 + Fiber + PDS

did:web5

An address-decoupled identifier that can last 300 years and stays under the owner’s control. No registrar, no coupling to a spend key, and anonymous. It’s the passport you carry across the Web5 world—portable, verifiable, and sovereign.

Fiber payment channels

An off-chain, private, small-value, high-speed payment fabric for daily life, instead of on-chain public payments. Channels favor distributed edge computations over centralized/decentralized computation in centers, cash-like latency over “wait the transaction be included by consensus”. Settlement happens when it matters; spending happens when you do.

PDS (Personal Data Server)

The data layer of Web5: by default, your data belongs to you, sits in your space (self-hosted or managed), and moves with your will, not with a platform’s terms. Platforms become clients; servers become replaceable plumbing. Discovery and migration are built-in features. ATproto and similar protocols are ready for use.

CKB the central nervous system that carries it all

A general, Cell-based PoW blockchain where UDT/DOB assets can live and interoperate with Bitcoin UTXOs through RGB++. It follows what Bitcoin cheers for and does more: censorship-resistant, uncompromised ownership, consensus state, programmable verifiability, sustainability, and minimal assumptions. Everything else we push to the edge, with proofs instead of trust.

It’s not Web3

Web2 built social graphs—and then made our data the product. Web3 promised data sovereignty—then taught the world that “Web3” means token speculation. Whether you like that verdict or not, that’s Web3’s reputation to many. Web5 is a second shot at fixing Web2, fixing data ownership for normal people. This time we target data custody straight, separate identity, payments, and data custody from platform control and from obsessions with on-chain computation.

Your Web5

These are my own opinions. CKB is a community-driven ecosystem, and everyone has their own Web5 (or Web3, if you still love it). Will CKB become a “Web5” ecosystem? I don’t know - that depends on builders, not me or fancy terms. What I do know is that when someone asks me “What is CKB?”, today I have a pretty good answer with a useful selection effect: If “Web5” resonates, we can work together; if it doesn’t, you’re a good guy.

For me, whether Web5 ends up as the final banner for CKB isn’t the point—maybe a better term or idea will emerge, from the community. The point is that Web5 is a solid brick to start the conversation: a way to line up values, sketch a path, and form a rough, working consensus. From there, we build.

18 Likes
3

I often find myself struggling to articulate why CKB’s architecture paves the way for the future. I will gladly borrow on your Web5 comparison!

The other layer I find is not spoken about enough is how crypto can bridge off chain database to enhance “real World” transactions with NFTs. I’d love to see more end-user control over contracts for important assets like real estate as well goods and services. In my uneducated opinion, CKB is well positionned to do so because of its RISC-V foundation, decentralization, verifiability as well as chain/currency agnostic (I assume that’s what you mean by Fiber).

I’m surprised that we haven’t seen more contracts that enable robust profit-sharing models in the industry but a lot of this rests on tying official, standardized, mandatory and publicly accessible database (I’m thinking of notary registrars as an example).

Do you also see Nervos as uniquely equipped to handle such use cases or am I missing a limitation there outside of off-chain considerations?

1 Like
4

There’s no simple answer, I’d view it from 3 dimensions.

1. Registered assets vs. bearer assets

Most “important, real-world” assets (land titles, vehicles, shares in a private company) are registered assets: a legal registry decides who owns what. By contrast, L1 public chains were built for bearer assets (cash-like): whoever controls the key, controls the asset—permissionless and pseudonymous.

If a use case is inherently KYC’d and permissioned (e.g., a land office or notary registry), forcing it onto a permissionless, pseudonymous L1 is usually mismatched: you incur high costs to create a permissionless foundation only to revert back to serving permissioned scenarios. You pay more to get less.

I believe L2s and independent appchains are better suited for registered assets, as they can be customized to meet the specific demands of these assets by sacrificing some aspects of permissionlessness and decentralization.

Note: In my personal dictionary, “layer 1” refers exclusively to permissionless blockchains that allow for the issuance of censorship-resistant bearer assets. Many so-called “layer 1” blockchains are actually “appchains” because they lack censorship resistance and neutrality.

2. NFT vs. FT on a UTXO chain

On Cell/UTXO model, every output is effectively an NFT (like a unique banknote), even when it represents a fungible amount. That’s why non-fungible objects (licenses, tickets, memberships, warranties, media rights, “digital goods with unique state”) can be made very native and UX-smooth on CKB. Therefore, it appears that currently NFT assets and scenarios may better showcase CKB’s uniqueness.

3. Digital vs. Analog

Nervos has always emphasized an on-chain / off-chain balance, while “off-chain” includes both digital systems like Web2 and the analog world. I believe that within the crypto ecosystem, web2 holds greater importance than the analog world and should be prioritized for integration. This is especially true for aspects of web2 that are essentially assets but cannot fully become real assets due to Web2’s technological limitations, such as various digital creations. While integrating assets from the analog world is possible, asset management there is already well-established; this maturity means fewer problems to solve but also implies greater resistance from existing institutions.

Think out of the box and look for uniqueness

Considering all these, I am more optimistic about CKB finding a unique intersection in the scenario of bearer digital assets. Of course, these are not absolute principles; we can always think out of the box.

For example, Nervape is a bearer asset that anyone can hold and own; its on-chain form is NFT/DOB, providing an excellent experience on CKB (e.g., DOB comes with transaction fees and can exist forever), while its off-chain form is a very special physical figurine connected to its on-chain form through 3D modeling and digital chips, becoming a kind of bearer digital+analog asset.

The emergence of Fiber and improvements in the Cell model can also present unique advantages for fungible token and scenarios on Nervos. I have always been optimistic about profit sharing contracts, but I believe the main factor hindering their true implementation is the privacy issue that I often mention—most businesses would not be willing to use profit sharing contracts without privacy, no matter how perfect and trustless their calculations are. Privacy happens to be a natural strength of channel networks like Fiber.

2 Likes
5

These days I’m encountering some limits of full node RPC and previously Cell Model. So this vision makes me excited, especially when coupled with ZK.

I was wondering: what’s your take on ZK? How do you see ZK in the context of CKB Web5?

Love & Peace, Phroi

1 Like