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
-
Web5: Extra Decentralized
-
Reclaiming the Bitcoin P2P Vision for a Web5 Future
-
论加密虚无主义
-
南塘：DAO与乡村数字化
