The Weight of Design: Web3 Tools and the Structure of Contribution
By Lucky Star, Responsible AI | Blockchain Educator & Consultant
Pathways to Participation: How Visibility Is Formed
[May 2025] — Web3 (Blockchain) has been introduced as a digital space where legacy gatekeeping models might be replaced by community-driven frameworks. However, ease of access to visibility, funding, and long-term support often remains contingent on prior financial means or established networks. In many cases, the same individuals are repeatedly elevated—not always because of merit or innovation, but due to relational proximity to stakeholders who shape visibility cycles.
This pattern does not necessarily stem from active exclusion, but from the reinforcement of pre-existing dynamics. As Clifford Chance (2022) notes, the structural conditions influencing participation remain largely unchallenged, even as Web3 expands globally.
Structural Hurdles That Shape Participation
While Web3 technology presents new opportunities, certain dynamics continue to affect how easily one can contribute meaningfully. These include:
-
Technical Familiarity:
The digital fluency required to engage with smart contracts, decentralized applications, and Web3 interfaces is not always accessible to individuals or communities unfamiliar with the space (LCX, n.d.). -
Cost of Entry:
Gas fees and other transactional costs can be substantial, especially for users in countries with weaker currency performance or fewer funding opportunities (Center for a Digital Future, n.d.). -
Imbalanced Attention Strategies:
Institutional outreach often focuses on emerging or “underrepresented” markets. Yet support may still favor actors who already hold influence or come from historically resourced regions, sometimes overlooking local talent that lacks access to the same promotional structures (BCG, 2023). -
Platform Incentive Models:
While some protocols publicly embrace regional inclusion, participation in decision-making forums often reflects recurring cycles of engagement from a select few. This may be due to funding criteria, logistical support, or deliberate choices about narrative shaping (WorkingInCrypto, n.d.).
Platform Design and Governance Considerations
Participation outcomes in Web3 are also influenced by how decision-making is structured. For example, token-weighted voting—a common feature in Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)—can disproportionately reflect the preferences of wealthier stakeholders. As highlighted by Wired (2022a), such models risk reinforcing the same concentration of power that decentralization initially sought to avoid.
Furthermore, the functionality and design of platforms may prioritize high-frequency users or those with financial stake, potentially limiting lower-resourced participants from experiencing continuity or visibility (Wired, 2022b). In the absence of transparent documentation about how decisions are made and who holds influence, the experience of fairness or shared opportunity can be inconsistent.
Beyond Optics: Building Substance into Web3 Participation
The next chapter of Web3’s development must be informed by shared accountability across technology creators, funders, and end users. Practical steps include:
-
Supporting Public Education Tools:
Investing in decentralized, low-cost learning platforms can help communities better understand Web3 mechanics and reduce overreliance on curated gatekeepers (Vanguard News, 2024). -
Distributing Resources Based on Substance:
Funding and recognition should not rely exclusively on proximity to power but instead reward alignment with publicly stated values and contributions to long-term public good (WorkingInCrypto, n.d.). -
Documenting Governance Processes:
Transparency about how protocols are governed—including who has final say in disputes, funding, and protocol updates—can improve trust across networks and geographies (Cointelegraph, 2023).
While no single change will resolve every concern, these shifts can enhance the ability of creators and technologists from a wider range of regions and backgrounds to participate with agency. The infrastructure for broader access exists. What remains is the shared momentum to act on this knowledge with consistency.
Sources & References
BCG. (2023, February 16). Web3 Already Has a Gender Diversity Problem. Retrieved from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2023/how-to-unravel-lack-of-gender-diversity-web3
Center for a Digital Future. (n.d.). Equity and Inclusion in Web3: The Experiences of Underrepresented Builders. Retrieved from https://www.centerforadigitalfuture.org/equityinweb3
Clifford Chance. (2022, July). Is Web3 looking at a diversity problem? Retrieved from https://www.cliffordchance.com/insights/resources/blogs/talking-tech/en/articles/2022/07/is-web3-looking-at-a-diversity-problem-.html
Cointelegraph. (2023, February 16). Crypto’s glass ceiling: Obstacles remain for women in Web3. Retrieved from https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-glass-ceiling-women-in-web3
LCX. (n.d.). Barriers to Web3 adoption by enterprises. Retrieved from https://www.lcx.com/barriers-to-web3-adoption-by-enterprises/
Vanguard News. (2024, March). Why Web3 developers should embrace inclusivity. Retrieved from https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/03/why-web3-developers-should-embrace-inclusivity/
Wired. (2022a, May 10). Paradise at the crypto arcade: Inside the Web3 revolution. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/web3-paradise-crypto-arcade
Wired. (2022b, May 12). The Web3 decentralization debate is focused on the wrong question. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/web3-blockchain-decentralization-governance
WorkingInCrypto. (n.d.). Diversity and inclusion in Web3 companies: Strategies for building a balanced team. Retrieved from https://www.workingincrypto.com/blog/diversity-and-inclusion-in-web3-companies-strategies-for-building-a-balanced-team