Web3 and Advertising: Fit & Friction

Web3 and Advertising: Fit & Friction

Web3 and Advertising: Why the Fit Is Awkward

1. Premises of the Web2 Ad Model

  • Centralized user data: Platforms like Google and Meta aggregate user behavior and optimize ad delivery with algorithms.
  • “Free service” in exchange for data: Users effectively provide their personal data to use services at no monetary cost.
  • Revenue comes from advertisers: Ad spend ultimately flows to the service providers.

2. The Web3 Ethos

  • Decentralization & ownership: Users directly control their data and assets via wallets.
  • Transparency: On‑chain transactions and histories are public, making black‑box targeting harder.
  • Direct value transfer: Tokens and NFTs enable direct rewards to users and creators.

3. Why the Mismatch

  1. Targeting is harder: Without centralized personal data, ultra‑precise Web2‑style ad targeting is difficult.
  2. User mindset: Many Web3 users resist data capture and prefer direct rewards, so ad viewing faces more friction.
  3. Different revenue logic: Instead of relying on advertisers, communities favor direct payments, tipping, and governance‑driven funding.

4. Where Ad‑like Elements May Survive

  • Rewarded ads: Opt‑in viewing in exchange for tokens (e.g., Brave’s BAT model).
  • On‑chain sponsorships: DAOs or NFT projects acting as sponsors.
  • Brand collaborations: Sponsored billboards or avatar items inside metaverse spaces.

In short, Web2 ads as data‑extraction clash with Web3. But consent‑based, value‑sharing ad models can still work.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Japan Jazz Anthology Select: Jazz of the SP Era

In practice, the most workable approach is to measure a composite “civility score” built from multiple indicators.