技术与社会的重构实践:Web5范式与空间生产的多元路径

作者:tovarishch.bit

—— 暨论理想主义者为什么应该参与Rock Web5

本文探讨Web5作为一种融合Web2与Web3优势的社会技术新范式,如何重构技术与社会的关系。通过对当前技术叙事困境的批判性分析,基于社会-技术(Sociotechnical)的跨学科视角,阐释Web5的理论内涵。以南塘乡村实践为起点,展现Web5作为一种边缘创新如何在多元场域中开展,重新连接技术与真实社会需求,构建一种开放、包容且具有真实价值的技术生态系统。

一、技术叙事的断裂与重构

技术异化的双重危机:金融资本化与概念空洞化

当我们审视当前区块链和加密货币领域发展轨迹时,一种深刻的矛盾逐渐显现:技术发展与其最初承诺的社会愿景之间的断裂。这种断裂主要表现为两方面的异化现象:一方面是技术的金融资本化,另一方面是技术概念的空洞化。

金融资本化的异化表现在,原本被设计为对抗传统金融系统中介化弊端的区块链技术,反而演变成一种更加剧烈的资本投机游戏。早期比特币爱好者希望创建的点对点电子现金系统,如今演变成了"加密华尔街":一个由概念制造者、风险投资、关系户项目方、交易所、做市商和广告公司共同合谋的金融游戏(这一点,尤其在特朗普第二轮上任后尤为明显)。这种异化过程使得技术本身沦为投机套利的工具,而非解决实际社会问题的方案。投机资本对创新的绑架导致了资源配置的扭曲,大量资金和人才涌入具有高投机性但社会价值有限的项目,而那些能够解决实际问题的技术应用却往往得不到足够的关注与支持。

与此同时,技术概念的空洞化也日益严重。“去中心化”、“Web3”、"Protocol"等术语已成为营销口号,其含义被不断稀释和扭曲。正如行业观察者,SeeDAO发起人Tang Han所言:"语词的混乱往往是虚无主义的征兆,它让人们搞不清自己究竟在为何而战。"这种概念的模糊性不仅模糊了技术的边界和目标,也掩盖了其中存在的技术和社会矛盾。当"去中心化"成为一种"意识形态"而非手段时,它反而成为阻碍技术真正服务于社会需求的障碍。

这双重异化的结果是创新者和参与者的普遍虚无感。技术不再是为解决问题而生,而是为了创造更多的问题;人们互不信任,视理想主义为金融收割的托词,缺乏激情,愈发无趣。这与最初人们怀揣变革之心进入加密世界的初衷背道而驰。

显现空间的消失:从阿伦特"行动理论"看区块链社区的公共性衰退

哲学家汉娜·阿伦特(Hannah Arendt)在其著作《人的条件》(The Human Condition)中提出了"显现空间"(space of appearance)的概念:一种人们通过言说和行动彼此相遇并展示个体性的公共领域,比如法国大革命和美国独立战争时期,人们通过集会和讨论形成的政治共同体。在健康的政治社区中,这种空间允许多元声音的交流与碰撞,形成真正的公共性。

将阿伦特的理论视角应用于当前区块链社区,我们发现一个令人忧虑的现象:真正的"显现空间"正在萎缩。区块链技术最初承诺创造一个更加开放、平等的网络环境,使每个参与者都能够自由表达和行动。然而,随着金融投机逻辑的主导,社区内的对话越来越集中于代币价格、投资策略和市场预测,而非技术本身的社会意义和应用价值。

这种公共性的衰退表现为三个方面:首先,社区讨论日益单一化,围绕价格波动和投资机会展开;其次,决策权力向少数拥有大量代币或技术专长的精英集中,普通参与者的声音被边缘化;最后,社区认同感逐渐被原子化的经济利益所取代,集体行动能力下降。这一切导致区块链社区逐渐失去了作为真正公共空间的功能,无法支持多元、开放的社会创新。

阿伦特认为,公共领域的萎缩意味着政治生活的衰落,而技术作为一种政治实践,同样需要健康的公共空间才能繁荣发展。区块链社区"显现空间"的消失,不仅阻碍了技术本身的创新,也削弱了技术参与社会变革的可能性。

阿伦特还区分了"劳动"(labor)、“工作”(work)和"行动"(action)三种人类活动形式,其中"行动"代表着人类通过言说和公共参与展现自由的活动。在健康的技术生态中,创造者应当能够通过"行动"展示个体性并塑造共同世界。或许,还有人记得曾经在NFT和DAO作为行业热点的时代,无数跨学科学者、艺术家、创作者、以及社会实践先驱,在创作者经济、去中心化治理、重构社会结构等理念感召下,投身到行业中,打开了依托于区块链技术的显现空间的想象力。然而,当前的区块链生态却越来越多地将参与者还原为纯粹的经济角色,压缩了人类作为自由行动者的空间。“P小将”、"E卫兵"等词语在调侃其行为模式狂热的同时,也揭示了本质上参与者与金融泡沫游戏中的齿轮无异的事实。技术本应作为人类的解放工具,却正在将人类工具化,这一悖论正是当前技术异化的核心体现。

技术生产与社会再生产的辩证关系:超越虚无主义的实践路径

面对当前区块链技术的双重异化和公共性衰退,我们需要重新思考技术生产与社会再生产之间的辩证关系。技术从来不是中立的工具,而是具有价值负载的社会实践。如法国社会学家布鲁诺·拉图尔(Bruno Latour)所言,技术与社会相互构成,技术的发展路径同时也是社会关系的重构过程。

在这个意义上,区块链技术的发展不仅是一个技术问题,更是一个如何重构社会关系的问题。当前的虚无主义困境,本质上反映了技术生产逻辑与社会需求之间的断裂。技术不再服务于社会再生产的需要,而是成为自我指涉的封闭系统。

超越这种虚无主义,需要一条新的实践路径:重新将技术生产嵌入社会再生产的语境中。按照"嵌入性"(embeddedness)概念的提出者,经济人类学家卡尔·波兰尼(Karl Polanyi)的理解,充满活力的经济活动应嵌入更广泛的社会关系网络,而非脱离社会成为独立运行的系统;同样,技术也需要嵌入社会语境,而非作为独立于社会需求的抽象系统。这意味着技术开发不应仅仅关注抽象的、技术至上的目标(如"完全去中心化"),而应聚焦于技术如何更好地服务于真实的社会需求和人类福祉。比如,如何让数字技术赋能社区自治、促进公平交易、保护个人隐私和数据主权等具体问题。

这种重新嵌入的过程,需要我们突破当前技术叙事的框架,建立一种新的技术范式。Web5作为一种整合Web2的可用性与Web3的去中心化价值的新范式,试图重构技术与社会的关系,为克服当前的虚无主义困境提供了可能的方向。

Web5不是简单的技术升级,而是从技术哲学出发的重新思考:它不再追求将所有应用计算搬到链上的"完全去中心化",而是聚焦于明确技术架构中的信任边界,在保障核心价值(如抗审查、数据主权)的前提下,充分利用现有的技术基础设施提供更好的用户体验。这种实用主义的路径,避免了技术乌托邦的陷阱,关注技术如何真正融入社会生活并服务于人类需求。

更重要的是,Web5提倡一种"Just For Fun"的技术精神,重新唤起技术创造的内在价值和乐趣。正如Linux创始人林纳斯·托瓦兹(Linus Torvalds)在他的自传标题《只是为了好玩:一个偶然革命者的故事》(Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary)中所表达的那样,技术开发本身应该是一种快乐的创造活动,而非仅仅为了外在回报的工具性劳动。这种回归技术本真的态度,有助于重建技术社区的内在动力和创造力,超越当前的虚无主义困境。

二、Web5:社会技术系统的新范式

技术哲学视角下的Web5:超越二元对立的整体性思维

Web5作为一种新兴的社会技术范式,其核心价值不仅在于技术创新,更在于提供了一种超越二元对立的整体性思维方式。长期以来,区块链行业的技术发展往往陷入二元对立的叙事框架中:中心化与去中心化、效率与安全、易用性与自主权、Web2与Web3。这种二元对立导致了技术发展路径的极端化,要么追求极致的用户体验而牺牲自主权(Web2模式),要么强调完全的去中心化而忽视实用性(Web3模式)。

这种近乎"现代性净化"(modernity’s purification)的二元分化逻辑,是早已被批判的一种虚构叙事:通过粗暴的主客划分,让我们误以为自己“现代”了,超越了前现代的混沌,而忽视了世界必然的混合性。正如哲学家唐·伊德(Don Ihde)在其后现象学技术观中所指出的,技术从来不是与人类经验分离的外在对象,而是塑造人类感知和行动方式的中介。Web5正是基于这种技术中介的理解,尝试超越简单的二元对立,重新思考技术与人类经验的关系。

Web5的核心公式"Web5 = Web2 + Web3"并非简单的技术叠加,而是对整个互联网演进逻辑的重新构想。它不再将Web2与Web3视为互斥的选择,而是认识到二者各有优势和局限,并尝试在一个统一的框架中整合两者的积极元素。Web2的中心化架构提供了卓越的用户体验和运营效率,而Web3的去中心化基础则保障了用户的数据主权和抗审查能力。Web5试图在这两种模式之间建立一种辩证的平衡,针对不同的应用场景和用户需求,灵活选择适当的技术方案。

这种整体性思维直接挑战了技术决定论的简化逻辑。技术决定论认为技术发展有其内在的、不可避免的轨迹,人类只能适应而非主导技术变革。相比之下,Web5采取了一种更为开放和反思性的态度,强调技术选择应当由社会需求和价值取向引导,而非技术本身的内在逻辑。正如技术哲学家安德鲁·芬伯格(Andrew Feenberg)提出的"技术的民主化"(democratization of technology)所指出的,技术的发展路径不是预定的,而是可以通过民主参与和价值引导而改变。

Web5范式下,技术不再是单向驱动社会变革的力量,也不仅仅是被动满足社会需求的工具,而是与社会需求和价值取向相互构成的复杂系统。这种复杂性思维有助于我们摆脱技术乌托邦与技术悲观主义的两极,构建更为平衡和务实的技术发展观。

这种整体性思维还可体现在Web5对人机关系的重新构想上。传统的"人机交互"(Human-Computer Interaction, HCI)范式将人与机器视为两个独立实体,彼此通过界面进行交流。而这种视角在AI技术突飞猛进的当下,必然为人类社会的结构带来来自AI这个终极他者(Other/Alterity)的巨大张力。而Web5则倾向于以人为根本的"人机共生"(Human-Computer Symbiosis, HCS),强调人与技术系统的深度融合与互相赋能,共同创造超越单方能力的价值。这种共生关系不是要消解人机界限,而是在保持各自边界的前提下,构建更加和谐、互补的协作方式。

关于边界的政治经济学:重新定义技术与权力的关系结构

这种整体性思维必然引发对系统边界的重新思考。Web5最具革命性的思想突破之一,是对边界,尤其是信任边界的重新概念化和实践。在传统Web2中,用户被迫将信任完全授予中心化平台;而在Web3的理想模型中,则试图通过完全去中心化消除对任何实体的信任需求。两种模式都存在明显局限:前者导致权力过度集中,后者则面临效率和用户体验的挑战。

Web5提出了一种更为精细和务实的信任边界划分方法:在系统中明确区分需要高度安全保障的部分和可以适当牺牲去中心化以换取更好用户体验的部分。这种划分不是任意的,而是基于对数据和权力政治经济学的深刻理解。

权力集中的根源在于控制关键资源的能力。在数字经济中,这些关键资源包括用户数据、身份信息和金融资产。Web5将这些核心资源的控制权归还给用户,同时允许非核心功能采用更灵活的技术方案。按照Nervos首席架构师Jan Xie的构想,Web5应该由web5/2和web5/3两个子系统构成。其中,web5/3是开放可验证且censorship resistant的子系统,主要负责核心资产和关键功能;而web5/2 子系统则虽然censorable但是开放可验证,适用于对性能和用户体验要求较高的场景。

这种信任边界的重新划定,实际上是对技术中权力结构的重新配置。法国哲学家米歇尔·福柯(Michel Foucault)在其权力-知识分析中指出,权力不仅是压制性的,也是生产性的,它通过知识体系和实践网络运作。在Web5中,权力不再集中于少数平台或协议开发者,而是通过分层设计被重新分配。用户对核心资产拥有最终控制权,同时又能享受高效的服务体验,为更加分散和公平的数字经济创造了可能。

值得注意的是,Web5对信任边界的重新划定不应是静态的,而是动态、开放且符合实用主义原则的。系统设计者需要不断评估和调整什么样的功能应该放在高度去中心化的层次,什么样的功能可以采用更加高效的中心化方案。这种灵活性使Web5能够适应不同场景的需求,避免了教条主义的陷阱,同时也重新把人这一概念放在了问题的核心进行考量。

从技术架构到社会结构:分层设计作为价值表达与系统韧性的物质基础

技术架构从来不是价值中立的,它们内嵌着特定的社会关系和价值取向。正如技术哲学家兰登·温纳(Langdon Winner)在《人工物具有政治性》(Do Artifacts Have Politics)中所指出的,技术设计本身就具有政治性,它们强化或挑战特定的权力结构和社会排序方式。例如,20世纪美国建筑师罗伯特·摩西(Robert Moses)设计的纽约长岛某些桥梁高度特别低,不允许公交车通过,只能让私家车通行。这意味着低收入人群(依赖公交)无法进入某些富裕社区,而有车的中上阶层可以自由出入。这种设计内嵌了种族和阶级偏见,强化了社会分层,限制了穷人的流动性。

回到Web5,其分层架构设计同样是其价值理念的物质表达。与试图将所有功能都放在链上的Web3模式不同,Web5采用了更为灵活的分层设计:底层是以比特币为代表的基础共识层,提供安全和不可篡改的记录;中间是以RGB++为代表的可编程层,使资产能够灵活编程;上层则是以闪电网络及成熟的Web2技术为代表的扩展层,实现快速交易和丰富应用。这种分层不仅是技术效率的考量,更是价值优先级的体现。

首先,将安全性和抗审查能力置于最基础的层次,关注的是信任、安全和基本权利,这些是社会契约的核心。这种设计保障了在整个技术栈中,用户对自己数据和资产的根本控制权不受侵犯。其次,将可编程性放在中间层,处理的是社会协作和经济交换的基本规则,为创新提供足够的灵活性。最后,将扩展性和应用多样性放在上层,对应多样化的社会生活和文化表达,以及对用户体验和实际应用的重视。

从系统理论视角看,Web5的分层架构还体现了斯塔福德·比尔(Stafford Beer)在可行系统模型(Viable System Model)中强调的"递归控制"原则:每个子系统既保持相对独立,又能与其他部分协调配合。这种递归结构使系统在不同层次上具有适应性,局部变化不会导致整体崩溃,同时能够处理不同复杂度的问题。不同类型的开发者可以在不同层次找到适合自己需求的工具和平台,从而形成一个既多样又协调的技术生态系统。这种设计不是自上而下的强制推行,而是提供一个开放框架,重新构建了一种数字化的显现空间(或者用行业中更熟悉的一个词,数字公地),使参与者能够根据自身需求组合和创新,增强了系统的整体韧性和适应能力。

三、Web5的多元实践路径:技术与社会的共同演化

边缘创新与技术民主:Web5实践的理论基础

在前一章中,我们从理论层面探讨了Web5作为一种社会技术范式的核心理念和架构设计。这些理念不是凭空想象,而是需要在具体的社会场景中实践和检验。边缘创新理论(Edge Innovation)提供了理解Web5实践路径的重要视角:最具变革性的创新往往不是来自主流技术中心,而是发生在系统边缘。比如,Linux起源于极客爱好者的边缘圈子,而非商业软件开发的中心。它最初被视为“异常”,因为它挑战了当时占主导地位的专有软件范式。然而通过开源社区的协作,Linux从边缘走向主流,最终成为服务器、嵌入式系统甚至云计算的核心技术。技术民主中关于创新的主张进一步强化了这一观点:创新来自于将受压迫者转变为自身解放的主体。这意味着将普通用户从被动消费者转变为技术的共同创造者。

在这种理论框架下,Web5的实践路径呈现出三个关键特征:首先,它应该是多中心的,没有单一权威定义何为"正确"实现;其次,它应该是情境化的,技术应用深度嵌入具体社会场景;最后,它应该是演进式的,通过不断迭代和适应来完善技术方案。

当我们带着这套思维框架考量Web5的实践路径时,像Rock Web5这样的,发生在传统互联网和主流区块链叙事边缘的一系列"Just For Fun"式的实验,显然提供了激发创新的场域。此外,它也不是由技术精英自上而下强制推行的解决方案,而是鼓励多元社区在各自场景中探索技术与社会需求的结合点的落地实践。

南塘:乡村语境中的Web5探索

Rock Web5选择南塘作为第一站,是基于Web5实践理论基础的合理考量。南塘作为一个典型的"边缘"实验场,提供了Web5理念在乡村语境中应用的生动案例。南塘26年的乡建历史构成了一个完整的社会技术演进历程:从早期的法律维权,到社区营造,再到合作经济和生态农业,最后发展到如今的数字化转型。这一过程不仅是技术应用的变迁,更是社区自我认知和能力的持续提升。

从列斐伏尔(Henri Lefebvre)的"空间生产"(production of space)视角看,南塘通过社会实践创造了一种新型的社会空间。南塘通过将数字技术嵌入乡村生活,重新定义了乡村空间的生产、体验和想象方式。这种空间重构打破了城乡二元对立的刻板印象,创造了一种新的存在可能性。尤其在当前城市空间日益异化和个体生活压力加剧的情况下,这种可能性所开启的想象空间尤为值得关注,因为它不仅提供了乡村复兴的路径,也为重新思考人的未来带来了启发。

南塘的混合治理架构同样值得关注。社区采用罗伯特议事规则组织线下决策(权力的程序性分配),使用区块链技术记录工分(透明的贡献确认),同时保留微信群等传统沟通渠道(低门槛的日常协作)。这种多层次的混合架构,实际上是Web5"分层信任"理念的前瞻性实践。它既保证了核心决策的民主性,又兼顾了日常协作的便利性,在实践中验证了Web5的核心主张:技术架构应反映多层次的社会需求。

最值得反思的是,南塘的实践并非简单套用现成的技术方案,而是基于本地需求和知识进行的创造性探索。人类学家克利福德·格尔茨(Clifford Geertz)的"地方性知识"概念提醒我们,知识总是嵌入在特定文化语境中的。南塘的创新正是地方性知识与全球化进程的对话产物,体现了一种"土法炼钢"式的边缘创新逻辑:从具体需求出发,灵活整合各种可用工具,创造适合本地语境的解决方案。

多元场域中的Web5前景:从乡村到城市,从本地到全球

Web5的实践绝不限于乡村场景。作为一种开放、灵活的社会技术范式,Web5能够适应各种不同的应用场景,根据具体需求选择适当的技术配置。

在城市工业场景中,Web5为制造业数字化转型提供了新路径。不同于传统的中心化工业互联网平台,Web5支持的分布式制造网络可以在保证数据安全的前提下,促进中小制造企业间的协作创新。例如,深圳的小规模制造商可以通过Web5技术栈构建的协作网络共享设计和生产能力,同时保留对核心专利和工艺数据的控制权,为制造业生态创造新的组织形式。

更广泛地看,Web5的实践同样契合超越地理边界的全球性技术社区。以后疫情时代所兴起的数字游民为代表,这个社区不同于传统的开源社区,它更加强调技术与在地社会需求的直接连接,以及不同文化背景下的多元实践。如人类学家阿帕杜莱(Arjun Appadurai)所描述的,全球化并非简单的同质化,而是"异质全球化"(heterogeneous globalization)的过程,各地方性特征与全球流动相互作用产生新的文化形态。在以主权国家(sovereignty)所主导的第三次全球化进程受阻的当下,基于Web5实践所构建的社区及其异质全球化的技术表达:一个既承认普遍价值(如数据主权、技术民主),又尊重多元实践路径的开放生态系统,或许同样是应对民粹主义、孤立主义抬头,重新推进全球化进程的力量。

同样值得一提的是Web5实践在新兴技术领域的应用前景。例如,在人工智能领域,Web5的分层信任架构为解决AI数据权属、机器信任和安全问题提供了新思路。通过在底层保障数据所有权和访问控制,中层提供开放可验证的模型训练机制,上层则支持丰富多样的应用场景,Web5架构为构建更加透明、可控的AI生态系统提供了可能。这种架构遵循了Web2+Web3的设计哲学,既能确保AI发展的技术前沿性,又能有效应对其潜在的社会风险,体现了Web5平衡技术创新与社会责任的核心理念。

四、Rock Web5:理想主义者的Web5行动路径

技术理想主义的重生:从虚无到行动

技术理想主义曾是区块链运动的核心驱动力:对建立一个更加开放、平等和自由的数字社会的向往,推动了无数人投身这一领域。然而,正如前文分析的,随着技术的金融资本化和概念的空洞化,这种理想主义逐渐被市场投机和短期利益所淹没,导致创新者的普遍虚无感和行动力的丧失。

但理想主义并非真正消亡,它只是等待着一种新的表达形式。法国哲学家阿兰·巴迪欧(Alain Badiou)在谈论政治变革时提出,真正的变革往往始于对"不可能"的坚持,在看似无路可走的情况下,对另一种可能性的固执追求。Web5正是这样一种对"不可能"的坚持:它拒绝接受当前行业发展的二元困境,坚持技术既可以尊重用户主权又能提供良好体验,既可以抵抗中心化控制又能融入现实社会需求。

这正是理想主义者应该参与Rock Web5的首要原因:它提供了一个重建技术与社会有机联系的行动平台,一个将理想转化为实践的具体路径。

显现空间的重建:从南塘到全球的共同创造

我们可以将Rock Web5理解为一种重建技术领域公共性的尝试。在数字时代,公共空间不仅存在于物理集会场所,也存在于网络连接和技术实践中。Rock Web5将通过创造一系列技术与社会交汇的实验场域,重建了这种数字时代的显现空间,使参与者能够通过言说和行动展示个体性,并共同塑造一个开放多元的技术社区。

从南塘开始,Rock Web5计划在全球不同地区、不同文化背景下开展一系列活动,每一站都将结合当地的产业特点和文化底蕴,探索Web5在不同场景中的应用可能。这种多元实践路径反映了Web5对多样性和情境性的尊重,也体现了一种"全球思考,本地行动"的策略,在共享普遍价值的同时,尊重并促进本地创新和文化表达。

这种多元性也体现在参与者的组成上。Rock Web5不仅欢迎技术专家,也欢迎设计师、社区组织者、跨学科研究者等各种背景的参与者。正如社会学家理查德·塞内特(Richard Sennett)在《共同合作》(Together)中所强调的,真正的合作不仅需要相似性,更需要差异性:不同背景、技能和视角的碰撞往往能产生最具创造性的解决方案。Rock Web5正是这样一个促进差异性对话与合作的平台,使不同领域的创新者能够跨越边界,共同探索Web5的多样可能性。

"Just For Fun"的革命性:重塑技术创造的内在价值

"Rock"这个词不仅代表坚实和可靠,更象征着一种反叛精神和创造激情。正如摇滚音乐挑战了商业流行乐的公式化创作,Rock Web5也试图打破当前区块链发展的教条化范式,重新发现技术创造的原始活力和乐趣。这种"Just For Fun"的理念已经在前文中有所讨论,但在本文最后,我想要再次强调它作为一种行动伦理的革命性意义。

社会心理学家米哈里·契克森米哈伊(Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi)通过对"心流"(flow)状态的研究发现,人在全神贯注、忘我投入的活动中体验到的满足感往往比外部奖励带来的快乐更加持久和深刻。当技术创造从金融投机的压力中解放出来,回归到解决真实问题和纯粹创造的内在动力时,它不仅能产生更高质量的成果,也能为创造者带来更深的满足和意义感。

Rock Web5将这种内在价值置于核心位置,鼓励参与者追求技术创造本身的乐趣和满足,而非仅仅关注外部回报。这不是对经济价值的否定,而是对价值多元性的肯定。在当前金融逻辑过度主导的环境中,重申技术创造的内在价值本身就具有革命性意义。技术创造是人类自我实现的一种形式,是灵魂通过外在媒介的表达。当我们将技术还原为纯粹的经济工具时,我们也剥夺了它作为灵魂表达的可能性,导致了技术与人文的断裂。Rock Web5试图修复这种断裂,重新连接技术与人文,恢复技术创造的整全性和意义感。

行动的召唤:加入Rock Web5全球社区

从2025年3月16日在安徽阜阳南塘开始,Rock Web5将在全球范围内展开一系列活动,每一站都将结合当地特色,探索Web5的多元可能性。我们诚挚邀请所有关心技术与社会关系、渴望参与有意义创新的理想主义者加入这一全球性运动。

参与Rock Web5,你将有机会:

  • 与来自全球各地、不同背景的创新者共同探索Web5的理论与实践
  • 在具体社会场景中验证和发展Web5的应用可能
  • 贡献你的专业知识和创造力,解决真实世界的问题
  • 成为一个新兴技术社区的早期参与者和塑造者
  • 重新发现技术创造的乐趣和意义,超越纯粹市场驱动的创新逻辑

正如法国哲学家和活动家西蒙·德·波伏娃(Simone de Beauvoir)所言:"未来不是我们要去的地方,而是我们正在创造的地方。通往这个地方的路径不是被发现的,而是在我们行走中形成的。"Web5的未来不是预设的蓝图,而是我们通过共同行动逐步创造的现实。每一个参与者都是这一创造过程的重要贡献者,每一次实践都是这一现实的组成部分。

在技术发展的关键十字路口,我们需要重新思考技术与社会的关系,重建技术与人文的连接。Rock Web5提供了一个具体的行动路径,一个将理想转化为实践的平台。无论你是技术专家、设计师、社区组织者还是跨学科研究者,无论你关心的是数据主权、社区自治还是创造性表达,Rock Web5都欢迎你的参与和贡献。

正是通过我们的共同行动,Web5将从理论构想成长为活生生的现实,从技术架构演变为社会创新。正是在这种共同创造中,我们能够超越当前的技术虚无主义,重新发现技术创造的意义和价值,构建一个更加开放、包容且有意义的技术未来。

加入我们,在南塘启程,在全球各地延续,共同Rock the Web5!

注:关于Rock Web5: 南塘 CodeCamp的具体信息和报名方式,请访问 https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/v4Uzjybd20vHCX0KJahHQw

参考阅读:

  1. Web5: Extra Decentralized
  2. Reclaiming the Bitcoin P2P Vision for a Web5 Future
  3. 论加密虚无主义
  4. 南塘:DAO与乡村数字化
2 Likes

Reconstructing Technology and Society: The Web5 Paradigm and Diverse Pathways of Space Production

Author: tovarishch.bit

— Why Idealists Should Engage with Rock Web5

I. The Rupture and Reconstruction of Technological Narratives

The Dual Crisis of Technological Alienation: Financialization and Conceptual Hollowing

When we examine the current trajectory of blockchain and cryptocurrency development, a profound contradiction gradually emerges: the rupture between technological development and its initially promised social vision. This rupture manifests primarily in two forms of alienation: the financialization of technology and the hollowing of technological concepts.

The alienation of financialization is evident in how blockchain technology, originally designed to counter the intermediation drawbacks of traditional financial systems, has instead evolved into an even more intense game of capital speculation. The peer-to-peer electronic cash system that early Bitcoin enthusiasts hoped to create has now transformed into “crypto Wall Street”: a financial game conspired by concept creators, venture capital, insider projects, exchanges, market makers, and advertising companies (a point particularly evident following Trump’s second term). This alienation process has reduced technology itself to a tool for speculative arbitrage rather than a solution to actual social problems. The hijacking of innovation by speculative capital has led to a distortion in resource allocation, with large amounts of money and talent flowing into projects with high speculative potential but limited social value, while technologies that could solve real problems often receive insufficient attention and support.

Meanwhile, the hollowing of technological concepts has become increasingly serious. Terms such as “decentralization,” “Web3,” and “Protocol” have become marketing slogans, their meanings continuously diluted and distorted. As industry observer and SeeDAO founder Tang Han notes: “The confusion of terminology is often a symptom of nihilism, leaving people unclear about what they’re fighting for.” This conceptual ambiguity not only blurs the boundaries and goals of technology but also obscures the technological and social contradictions that exist within it. When “decentralization” becomes an “ideology” rather than a means, it instead becomes an obstacle preventing technology from truly serving social needs.

The result of this dual alienation is a pervasive sense of nihilism among innovators and participants. Technology no longer exists to solve problems but to create more problems; people distrust each other, view idealism as a pretext for financial harvesting, lack passion, and increasingly find the field uninteresting. This runs counter to the original intentions of those who entered the crypto world with aspirations for change.

The Disappearance of the Space of Appearance: The Decline of Public Nature in Blockchain Communities from Arendt’s “Theory of Action”

Philosopher Hannah Arendt, in her work “The Human Condition,” proposed the concept of a “space of appearance”: a public realm where people meet through speech and action and display their individuality, such as the political communities formed through assemblies and discussions during the French Revolution and American War of Independence. In a healthy political community, this space allows for the exchange and collision of diverse voices, forming true publicness.

Applying Arendt’s theoretical perspective to the current blockchain community, we find a worrying phenomenon: the true “space of appearance” is shrinking. Blockchain technology initially promised to create a more open and equal network environment, allowing each participant to express and act freely. However, with the dominance of financial speculation logic, community dialogue increasingly focuses on token prices, investment strategies, and market predictions, rather than the social significance and application value of the technology itself.

This decline in publicness manifests in three aspects: First, community discussions are increasingly homogenized, revolving around price fluctuations and investment opportunities; second, decision-making power is concentrated among a minority who possess large amounts of tokens or technical expertise, marginalizing the voices of ordinary participants; finally, community identity is gradually replaced by atomized economic interests, reducing the capacity for collective action. All this has led blockchain communities to progressively lose their function as truly public spaces, unable to support diverse, open social innovation.

Arendt believed that the shrinking of the public sphere signifies the decline of political life, and technology, as a political practice, similarly requires a healthy public space to flourish. The disappearance of the “space of appearance” in blockchain communities not only hinders technological innovation itself but also weakens the possibility of technology participating in social change.

Arendt also distinguished between three forms of human activity: “labor,” “work,” and “action,” with “action” representing human activities that demonstrate freedom through speech and public participation. In a healthy technological ecosystem, creators should be able to demonstrate individuality and shape the common world through “action.” Perhaps some still remember when NFTs and DAOs were industry hotspots, countless interdisciplinary scholars, artists, creators, and social practice pioneers were drawn to the industry, inspired by ideas such as creator economy, decentralized governance, and restructuring social structures, opening up the imaginative possibilities of a space of appearance based on blockchain technology. However, the current blockchain ecosystem increasingly reduces participants to purely economic roles, compressing the space for humans as free actors. Terms like “Meme Warriors” and “Ethereum Defenders,” while mocking their fanatical behavior patterns, also reveal the fact that participants are essentially no different from cogs in a financial bubble game. Technology, which should be a tool for human liberation, is actually instrumentalizing humans—this paradox is the core manifestation of current technological alienation.

The Dialectical Relationship Between Technological Production and Social Reproduction: A Practical Path Beyond Nihilism

Facing the dual alienation of blockchain technology and the decline of public nature, we need to rethink the dialectical relationship between technological production and social reproduction. Technology is never a neutral tool but a social practice loaded with values. As French sociologist Bruno Latour suggests, technology and society are mutually constitutive; the development path of technology is simultaneously a process of reconstructing social relations.

In this sense, the development of blockchain technology is not just a technological issue but a question of how to reconstruct social relations. The current nihilistic predicament essentially reflects the rupture between technological production logic and social needs. Technology no longer serves the needs of social reproduction but has become a self-referential closed system.

To transcend this nihilism requires a new practical path: reembedding technological production within the context of social reproduction. According to economic anthropologist Karl Polanyi, who proposed the concept of “embeddedness,” vibrant economic activity should be embedded in broader networks of social relations rather than operating as a system independent of society; similarly, technology needs to be embedded in social contexts rather than existing as an abstract system independent of social needs. This means that technological development should not focus solely on abstract, technology-centric goals (such as “complete decentralization”) but on how technology can better serve real social needs and human well-being. For instance, how digital technology can empower community self-governance, promote fair trade, protect personal privacy and data sovereignty, and address other concrete issues.

This process of reembedding requires us to break through the framework of current technological narratives and establish a new technological paradigm. Web5, as a new paradigm that integrates the usability of Web2 with the decentralized values of Web3, attempts to reconstruct the relationship between technology and society, providing a possible direction for overcoming the current nihilistic predicament.

Web5 is not a simple technological upgrade, but a rethinking from the philosophy of technology: it no longer pursues “complete decentralization” by moving all application computing on-chain, but focuses on clearly defining the trust boundaries in the technological architecture, providing better user experiences by fully utilizing existing technological infrastructure while ensuring core values (such as anti-censorship and data sovereignty). This pragmatic path avoids the trap of technological utopianism, focusing on how technology can truly integrate into social life and serve human needs.

More importantly, Web5 advocates a “Just For Fun” technological spirit, reawakening the intrinsic value and enjoyment of technological creation. As Linux founder Linus Torvalds expressed in his autobiography title “Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary,” technological development should itself be a joyful creative activity, not merely instrumental labor for external rewards. This return to the authentic essence of technology helps rebuild the intrinsic motivation and creativity of the technology community, transcending the current nihilistic predicament.

II. Web5: A New Paradigm of Socio-Technical Systems

Web5 from the Perspective of Philosophy of Technology: Holistic Thinking Beyond Binary Opposition

As an emerging socio-technical paradigm, the core value of Web5 lies not only in technological innovation but also in providing a holistic thinking method that transcends binary opposition. For a long time, technological development in the blockchain industry has often been trapped in a binary narrative framework: centralization versus decentralization, efficiency versus security, usability versus autonomy, Web2 versus Web3. This binary opposition has led to the extremization of technological development paths, either pursuing ultimate user experience at the cost of autonomy (Web2 model) or emphasizing complete decentralization while neglecting practicality (Web3 model).

This binary division logic, akin to “modernity’s purification,” is a fictitious narrative that has already been criticized: through crude subject-object division, it makes us mistakenly believe we have become “modern,” transcending pre-modern chaos, while ignoring the inevitable hybridity of the world. As philosopher Don Ihde points out in his post-phenomenological view of technology, technology is never an external object separated from human experience but a medium that shapes human perception and action modes. Based on this understanding of technological mediation, Web5 attempts to transcend simple binary oppositions and rethink the relationship between technology and human experience.

The core formula of Web5, “Web5 = Web2 + Web3,” is not a simple technological superposition but a reimagining of the entire internet evolution logic. It no longer views Web2 and Web3 as mutually exclusive choices but recognizes that both have advantages and limitations, attempting to integrate the positive elements of both in a unified framework. Web2’s centralized architecture provides excellent user experience and operational efficiency, while Web3’s decentralized foundation ensures user data sovereignty and anti-censorship capabilities. Web5 seeks to establish a dialectical balance between these two models, flexibly choosing appropriate technological solutions for different application scenarios and user needs.

This holistic thinking directly challenges the simplified logic of technological determinism. Technological determinism holds that technological development has its intrinsic, inevitable trajectory, and humans can only adapt to rather than lead technological change. In contrast, Web5 adopts a more open and reflective attitude, emphasizing that technological choices should be guided by social needs and value orientations rather than the intrinsic logic of technology itself. As technology philosopher Andrew Feenberg’s “democratization of technology” points out, the development path of technology is not predetermined but can be changed through democratic participation and value guidance.

Under the Web5 paradigm, technology is no longer a unidirectional force driving social change, nor merely a passive tool satisfying social needs, but a complex system mutually constituted with social needs and value orientations. This complexity thinking helps us escape the poles of technological utopianism and technological pessimism, constructing a more balanced and pragmatic view of technological development.

This holistic thinking is also reflected in Web5’s reimagining of human-machine relationships. The traditional “Human-Computer Interaction” (HCI) paradigm views humans and machines as two independent entities communicating through interfaces. Such a perspective inevitably brings tremendous tension to human social structures from AI, the ultimate Other, in today’s rapidly advancing AI technologies. Web5, however, inclines toward a human-centered “Human-Computer Symbiosis” (HCS), emphasizing the deep integration and mutual empowerment between humans and technological systems, jointly creating value beyond the capabilities of either side alone. This symbiotic relationship does not aim to dissolve human-machine boundaries but to build more harmonious, complementary collaboration while maintaining respective boundaries.

The Political Economy of Boundaries: Redefining the Relationship Structure Between Technology and Power

One of Web5’s most revolutionary conceptual breakthroughs is the reconceptualization and practice of boundaries, especially trust boundaries. In traditional Web2, users are forced to fully trust centralized platforms; while in the ideal Web3 model, there’s an attempt to eliminate the need for trust in any entity through complete decentralization. Both models have obvious limitations: the former leads to excessive concentration of power, while the latter faces challenges in efficiency and user experience.

Web5 proposes a more refined and pragmatic method of dividing trust boundaries: clearly distinguishing within the system between parts that need high security guarantees and parts where decentralization can be appropriately sacrificed for better user experience. This division is not arbitrary but based on a profound understanding of the political economy of data and power.

The root of power concentration lies in the ability to control key resources. In the digital economy, these key resources include user data, identity information, and financial assets. Web5 returns control of these core resources to users while allowing more flexible technological solutions for non-core functions. According to Nervos Chief Architect Jan Xie’s vision, Web5 should consist of two subsystems: web5/2 and web5/3. The web5/3 subsystem is open, verifiable, and censorship-resistant, primarily responsible for core assets and key functions; while the web5/2 subsystem, though censorable, is open and verifiable, suitable for scenarios requiring high performance and user experience.

This redrawing of trust boundaries is actually a reconfiguration of power structures in technology. French philosopher Michel Foucault, in his power-knowledge analysis, points out that power is not only repressive but also productive, operating through knowledge systems and practice networks. In Web5, power is no longer concentrated among a few platforms or protocol developers but redistributed through layered design. Users have ultimate control over core assets while enjoying efficient service experiences, creating possibilities for a more distributed and fair digital economy.

It’s worth noting that Web5’s redrawing of trust boundaries should not be static but dynamic, open, and consistent with pragmatic principles. System designers need to continuously evaluate and adjust which functions should be placed at highly decentralized levels and which can adopt more efficient centralized solutions. This flexibility allows Web5 to adapt to the needs of different scenarios, avoiding the trap of dogmatism, while also placing humans back at the core of consideration.

From Technical Architecture to Social Structure: Layered Design as the Material Foundation for Value Expression and System Resilience

Technical architecture is never value-neutral; it embeds specific social relations and value orientations. As technology philosopher Langdon Winner points out in “Do Artifacts Have Politics,” technological design itself has political nature, reinforcing or challenging specific power structures and social ordering methods. For example, certain bridges in New York’s Long Island designed by 20th-century American architect Robert Moses were particularly low, not allowing buses to pass through, only private cars. This meant that low-income groups (who rely on buses) could not enter certain affluent communities, while middle and upper classes with cars could come and go freely. This design embedded racial and class biases, reinforcing social stratification and limiting the mobility of the poor.

Returning to Web5, its layered architecture design is also a material expression of its value ideas. Unlike the Web3 model that attempts to put all functions on-chain, Web5 adopts a more flexible layered design: the bottom layer is the basic consensus layer represented by Bitcoin, providing security and immutable records; the middle is the programmable layer represented by RGB++, allowing assets to be flexibly programmed; the upper layer is the extension layer represented by the Lightning Network and mature Web2 technologies, achieving rapid transactions and rich applications. This layering is not only a consideration of technical efficiency but also a manifestation of value priorities.

First, placing security and anti-censorship capabilities at the most basic level focuses on trust, security, and basic rights, which are the core of the social contract. This design ensures that users’ fundamental control over their data and assets is not infringed upon throughout the technology stack. Second, placing programmability in the middle layer deals with the basic rules of social collaboration and economic exchange, providing sufficient flexibility for innovation. Finally, placing extensibility and application diversity at the upper layer corresponds to diverse social life and cultural expression, as well as an emphasis on user experience and practical applications.

From a systems theory perspective, Web5’s layered architecture also embodies the principle of “recursive control” emphasized by Stafford Beer in the Viable System Model: each subsystem maintains relative independence while coordinating with other parts. This recursive structure gives the system adaptability at different levels, where local changes do not lead to overall collapse, while being able to handle problems of different complexities. Different types of developers can find tools and platforms suitable for their needs at different levels, forming a technological ecosystem that is both diverse and coordinated. This design is not a top-down mandatory implementation but provides an open framework, reconstructing a digital space of appearance (or a more familiar term in the industry, digital commons), allowing participants to combine and innovate according to their needs, enhancing the overall resilience and adaptability of the system.

III. Diverse Practical Pathways of Web5: Co-evolution of Technology and Society

Edge Innovation and Technological Democracy: Theoretical Foundations of Web5 Practice

In the previous chapter, we explored the core ideas and architectural design of Web5 as a socio-technical paradigm at a theoretical level. These ideas are not imaginary but need to be practiced and tested in specific social scenarios. Edge Innovation theory provides an important perspective for understanding Web5’s practical path: the most transformative innovations often come not from mainstream technology centers but from the edges of the system. For example, Linux originated from the fringe circle of geek enthusiasts rather than the center of commercial software development. It was initially viewed as an “anomaly” because it challenged the dominant proprietary software paradigm at the time. However, through open-source community collaboration, Linux moved from the edge to the mainstream, eventually becoming a core technology for servers, embedded systems, and even cloud computing. The proposition about innovation in technological democracy further strengthens this view: innovation comes from transforming the oppressed into subjects of their own liberation. This means converting ordinary users from passive consumers to co-creators of technology.

Within this theoretical framework, Web5’s practical path presents three key characteristics: First, it should be polycentric, with no single authority defining what constitutes a “correct” implementation; second, it should be situated, with technology applications deeply embedded in specific social scenarios; finally, it should be evolutionary, perfecting technology solutions through continuous iteration and adaptation.

When we consider Web5’s practical path with this mindset, a series of “Just For Fun” experiments like Rock Web5, occurring at the edge of traditional internet and mainstream blockchain narratives, clearly provide a field for stimulating innovation. Additionally, it is not a solution forced top-down by technological elites but encourages diverse communities to explore the combination points of technology and social needs in their respective scenarios through grounded practices.

Nantang: Web5 Exploration in a Rural Context

Rock Web5’s choice of Nantang as its first stop is a reasonable consideration based on the theoretical foundation of Web5 practice. Nantang, as a typical “edge” experimental field, provides a vivid case of Web5 ideas applied in a rural context. Nantang’s 26-year history of rural construction constitutes a complete socio-technical evolution process: from early legal rights protection to community building, then to cooperative economy and ecological agriculture, and finally to the current digital transformation. This process is not only a transition of technological applications but also a continuous enhancement of community self-awareness and capability.

From Henri Lefebvre’s perspective of “production of space,” Nantang has created a new type of social space through social practice. Nantang redefines the production, experience, and imagination of rural space by embedding digital technology into rural life. This spatial reconstruction breaks the stereotypical binary opposition between urban and rural, creating a new possibility of existence. Especially in the current context of increasing alienation of urban space and intensifying individual life pressure, this possibility opens up an imaginative space worth attention, as it not only provides a path for rural revitalization but also brings inspiration for rethinking the future of humanity.

Nantang’s hybrid governance architecture is equally noteworthy. The community uses Robert’s Rules of Order to organize offline decision-making (procedural distribution of power), blockchain technology to record work points (transparent confirmation of contribution), while retaining traditional communication channels such as WeChat groups (low-threshold daily collaboration). This multi-level hybrid architecture is actually a forward-looking practice of Web5’s “layered trust” idea. It ensures both the democracy of core decisions and the convenience of daily collaboration, verifying in practice the core assertion of Web5: technological architecture should reflect multi-level social needs.

Most worth reflecting on is that Nantang’s practice is not simply applying ready-made technological solutions but a creative exploration based on local needs and knowledge. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz’s concept of “local knowledge” reminds us that knowledge is always embedded in specific cultural contexts. Nantang’s innovation is precisely a product of dialogue between local knowledge and globalization processes, reflecting an “indigenous” edge innovation logic: starting from specific needs, flexibly integrating various available tools, creating solutions suitable for the local context.

Web5 Prospects in Diverse Domains: From Rural to Urban, From Local to Global

Web5 practices are certainly not limited to rural scenarios. As an open, flexible socio-technical paradigm, Web5 can adapt to various application scenarios, choosing appropriate technology configurations based on specific needs.

In urban industrial scenarios, Web5 provides a new path for manufacturing digital transformation. Unlike traditional centralized industrial internet platforms, Web5-supported distributed manufacturing networks can promote collaborative innovation among small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises while ensuring data security. For example, small-scale manufacturers in Shenzhen can share design and production capabilities through a collaborative network built on the Web5 technology stack, while retaining control over core patents and process data, creating new organizational forms for the manufacturing ecosystem.

More broadly, Web5 practices also align with global technological communities that transcend geographical boundaries. Represented by digital nomads who rose in the post-pandemic era, this community differs from traditional open-source communities by emphasizing the direct connection between technology and local social needs, as well as diverse practices across different cultural backgrounds. As anthropologist Arjun Appadurai describes, globalization is not a simple homogenization but a process of “heterogeneous globalization,” where local characteristics interact with global flows to produce new cultural forms. In the current context where the third wave of globalization led by sovereign states is hindered, the communities built on Web5 practices and their heterogeneous global technological expressions—an open ecosystem that both acknowledges universal values (such as data sovereignty, technological democracy) and respects diverse practical paths—may also be a force to counter the rise of populism and isolationism and to advance the process of globalization anew.

Equally worth mentioning is the application prospect of Web5 practices in emerging technology fields. For example, in the field of artificial intelligence, Web5’s layered trust architecture provides new ideas for solving AI data ownership, machine trust, and security issues. By ensuring data ownership and access control at the bottom layer, providing an open and verifiable model training mechanism at the middle layer, and supporting rich and diverse application scenarios at the upper layer, the Web5 architecture offers possibilities for building a more transparent and controllable AI ecosystem. This architecture follows the design philosophy of Web2+Web3, ensuring both the technological frontier of AI development and effectively addressing its potential social risks, embodying Web5’s core idea of balancing technological innovation and social responsibility.

IV. Rock Web5: Action Path for Idealists in Web5

The Rebirth of Technological Idealism: From Nihilism to Action

Technological idealism was once the core driving force of the blockchain movement: the aspiration to build a more open, equal, and free digital society drove countless people into this field. However, as analyzed earlier, with the financialization of technology and the hollowing of concepts, this idealism has gradually been submerged by market speculation and short-term interests, leading to a pervasive sense of nihilism and loss of agency among innovators.

But idealism has not truly died; it is merely waiting for a new form of expression. French philosopher Alain Badiou, when discussing political change, suggests that true change often begins with an insistence on the “impossible,” a stubborn pursuit of another possibility when there seems to be no way out. Web5 is just such an insistence on the “impossible”: it refuses to accept the binary dilemma of current industry development, persisting that technology can both respect user sovereignty and provide good experiences, both resist centralized control and integrate into real social needs.

This is the primary reason why idealists should participate in Rock Web5: it provides an action platform for rebuilding the organic connection between technology and society, a concrete path for transforming ideals into practice.

Rebuilding the Space of Appearance: Co-creation from Nantang to Global

We can understand Rock Web5 as an attempt to rebuild publicness in the technological field. In the digital age, public spaces exist not only in physical meeting places but also in network connections and technological practices. Rock Web5 will rebuild this space of appearance in the digital age by creating a series of experimental domains where technology and society converge, allowing participants to demonstrate individuality through speech and action, and jointly shape an open and diverse technological community.

Starting from Nantang, Rock Web5 plans to conduct a series of activities in different regions and cultural backgrounds around the world, with each stop combining local industrial characteristics and cultural foundations to explore the application possibilities of Web5 in different scenarios. This diverse practical approach reflects Web5’s respect for diversity and situatedness, embodying a “think globally, act locally” strategy that respects and promotes local innovation and cultural expression while sharing universal values.

This diversity is also reflected in the composition of participants. Rock Web5 welcomes not only technical experts but also designers, community organizers, interdisciplinary researchers, and participants from various backgrounds. As sociologist Richard Sennett emphasizes in “Together,” true cooperation requires not only similarity but also difference: the collision of different backgrounds, skills, and perspectives often produces the most creative solutions. Rock Web5 is precisely such a platform promoting dialogue and cooperation across differences, allowing innovators from different fields to cross boundaries and jointly explore the diverse possibilities of Web5.

The Revolutionary Nature of “Just For Fun”: Reshaping the Intrinsic Value of Technological Creation

The word “Rock” not only represents solidity and reliability but also symbolizes a rebellious spirit and creative passion. Just as rock music challenged the formulaic creation of commercial pop music, Rock Web5 also attempts to break the dogmatic paradigm of current blockchain development and rediscover the original vitality and fun of technological creation. This “Just For Fun” idea has been discussed earlier, but at the end of this article, I want to emphasize again its revolutionary significance as an action ethic.

Social psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, through his research on the “flow” state, found that the satisfaction people experience in fully engaged, selfless activities is often more lasting and profound than the happiness brought by external rewards. When technological creation is liberated from the pressure of financial speculation and returns to the intrinsic motivation of solving real problems and pure creation, it not only produces higher quality outcomes but also brings deeper satisfaction and sense of meaning to creators.

Rock Web5 places this intrinsic value at its core, encouraging participants to pursue the fun and satisfaction of technological creation itself, rather than just focusing on external rewards. This is not a negation of economic value but an affirmation of value plurality. In the current environment where financial logic is overly dominant, reaffirming the intrinsic value of technological creation itself has revolutionary significance. Technological creation is a form of human self-realization, an expression of the soul through external media. When we reduce technology to purely economic tools, we also deprive it of the possibility as soul expression, leading to a rupture between technology and humanity. Rock Web5 attempts to repair this rupture, reconnecting technology and humanity, restoring the wholeness and sense of meaning in technological creation.

Call to Action: Join the Global Rock Web5 Community

Starting from March 16, 2025, in Nantang, Fuyang, Anhui, Rock Web5 will launch a series of activities globally, each stop combining local characteristics to explore the diverse possibilities of Web5. We sincerely invite all idealists who care about the relationship between technology and society and yearn to participate in meaningful innovation to join this global movement.

By participating in Rock Web5, you will have the opportunity to:

  • Explore the theory and practice of Web5 with innovators from different backgrounds around the world
  • Validate and develop the application possibilities of Web5 in specific social scenarios
  • Contribute your professional knowledge and creativity to solve real-world problems
  • Become an early participant and shaper of an emerging technological community
  • Rediscover the fun and meaning of technological creation, transcending purely market-driven innovation logic

As French philosopher and activist Simone de Beauvoir said: “The future is not a place we are going to, but one we are creating. The path to it is not found but made as we walk it.” The future of Web5 is not a preset blueprint but a reality we gradually create through joint action. Each participant is an important contributor to this creative process, and each practice is a component of this reality.

At the critical crossroads of technological development, we need to rethink the relationship between technology and society and rebuild the connection between technology and humanity. Rock Web5 provides a concrete action path, a platform for transforming ideals into practice. Whether you are a technical expert, designer, community organizer, or interdisciplinary researcher, whether you care about data sovereignty, community self-governance, or creative expression, Rock Web5 welcomes your participation and contribution.

It is through our joint action that Web5 will grow from theoretical conception to living reality, from technological architecture to social innovation. It is in this co-creation that we can transcend current technological nihilism, rediscover the meaning and value of technological creation, and build a more open, inclusive, and meaningful technological future.

Join us, starting from Nantang, continuing around the world, and together Rock the Web5!

Note: For more information and registration about Rock Web5: Nantang CodeCamp, please visit

Extended Material

  1. Web5: Extra Decentralized

  2. Reclaiming the Bitcoin P2P Vision for a Web5 Future

  3. 论加密虚无主义

  4. 南塘:DAO与乡村数字化

2 Likes