Comparison of Web2 and Web3 Architectures: The Evolution and Convergence of Internet Infrastructure

[TL;DR]

• Web2 is an efficient, centralized model where platforms control authentication, data, and permissions, whereas Web3 is a decentralized model where users own their assets and identities through cryptographic mechanisms.
• Each paradigm has its strengths and weaknesses, leading to the rise of hybrid models such as embedded wallets, token-based governance, and progressive decentralization.
• The future of the internet will evolve into a balanced model that integrates Web2’s usability with Web3’s user sovereignty, marking not just a technological shift but a fundamental restructuring of power and value distribution in the digital world.
  ‍

1. Evolution of Internet Architecture

1.1. Comparison of Web2 and Web3 Technological Foundations

Since its inception, the internet has undergone several significant structural changes. As widely known, the early Web1 era was centered around static content, evolving into the user-driven Web2 platforms in the mid-2000s. Today, Web3 is emerging as a new paradigm, fundamentally altering the structure of the internet.

Web2 is based on a 'centralized server-client model', resembling a large shopping mall. The platform (mall) owns and manages the infrastructure (building), while visitors (users) access goods (content and services) according to the mall’s rules. Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Naver store all data on their centralized servers, and users access services through web browsers or apps.

A key characteristic of this model is its unidirectional data flow. When a user uploads a video to YouTube, it is stored on YouTube's servers. Viewers must access these servers to watch the video, granting YouTube complete control over data storage, processing, and distribution.

The typical Web2 tech stack includes:

• Servers: Operating systems like Linux, web servers such as Apache/Nginx, and databases like MySQL/PostgreSQL.
• Client: Web interfaces built with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript.
• Communication protocols: HTTP/HTTPS request-response model.
• Cloud infrastructure: AWS, Google Cloud, Azure, and similar services.

Conversely, Web3 operates on a 'decentralized network model', with blockchain networks like Ethereum, Solana, and Polygon serving as the infrastructure. Instead of data and application logic being stored on a single server, they are distributed across thousands of global nodes.

In Web3, data flows multidirectionally. For instance, when an NFT is created, its information is recorded on a blockchain, allowing all network participants to verify it. Users do not rely on a specific company’s server to access or trade NFTs; they can use multiple marketplaces or wallets.

The Web3 tech stack consists of:

• Infrastructure: Blockchain networks (Ethereum, Solana, etc.).
• Smart contracts: Decentralized application logic written in Solidity.
• Distributed storage: Content storage systems like IPFS and Arweave.
• Client interfaces: Libraries such as Web3.js and Ethers.js for blockchain interactions.
• Wallets: Private key management tools like MetaMask.

The fundamental difference between these models lies in 'trust formation'. Web2 relies on trust in centralized companies like Google and Facebook, assuming they will securely store data, maintain services, and enforce fair rules. In contrast, Web3 operates on a 'trust in code' model, where security is ensured by cryptographic proofs and economic incentives within decentralized protocols.

For example, in Web2, a user checks their bank balance by trusting the bank's database. In Web3, a user verifies their cryptocurrency balance through mathematical proofs and blockchain consensus mechanisms.
‍

1.2. The Convergence of Two Paradigms

Web2 and Web3 are not entirely separate concepts; in practice, their boundaries are increasingly blurred. Rather than Web3 completely replacing Web2, hybrid solutions are emerging that integrate both approaches.

A prime example is the 'embedded wallet'. Traditional cryptocurrency wallets like MetaMask require users to manage long seed phrases and pay gas fees, creating high barriers to entry. Embedded wallets allow users to interact with blockchain through familiar social logins or email authentication.

Here’s how they work: When a user logs in via social authentication, the service generates a blockchain wallet in the backend. Private keys can be managed through methods like Multi-Party Computation (MPC) or Trusted Execution Environments (TEE), ensuring that neither the service provider nor the user holds full control over the key, enhancing security.

Another example is 'on-chain data oracles'. Since blockchains are isolated from external data, smart contracts requiring off-chain information (e.g., stock prices, weather, sports results) rely on oracles to fetch and verify this data.

The convergence of Web2 and Web3 is driven by their respective limitations. Web2 faces issues like centralization risks, data monopolization, and censorship, while Web3 struggles with scalability, usability, and legal uncertainty. Hybrid approaches seek to leverage the strengths of both models to address these challenges.

For instance, fully decentralized social media platforms remain difficult to implement, but integrating blockchain-based digital identities and content authentication into existing social platforms can enhance censorship resistance and improve creator monetization.

This integration process is ongoing, and the future of the internet is likely to feature a coexistence of various hybrid services and applications combining elements of Web2 and Web3.

Ultimately, the evolution of internet architecture will be shaped not only by technological advancements but also by user needs, regulatory environments, and sustainable business models. The fusion of Web2 and Web3 represents a natural progression in this complex landscape.

‍

2. Paradigm Shift in Authentication Systems

2.1. Web2: Platform-Centric Authentication Structure

In the Web2 environment, authentication is fundamentally "a method to prove who you are." The most familiar form involves entering an ID and password. If we take a closer look at this process, it is a procedure where the information entered by the user is checked against the data stored on the servers of platforms like Facebook or Naver.

The core of this model is that "platforms manage user information." When a user signs up for Netflix, their information is stored on Netflix’s servers. When they sign up for Kakao, their data is kept on Kakao’s servers. This is why each service requires a separate account.

To alleviate this inconvenience, "social login" was introduced. This feature allows users to log in to other services using their Google or Facebook accounts, leveraging a technology called OAuth. While this method significantly improves user experience, it ultimately increases dependence on large platforms like Google or Facebook. The same applies to "two-factor authentication," which enhances security by requiring an additional verification code sent via SMS or generated by an authentication app alongside a password, making account hacking more difficult.

One of the significant advantages of the Web2 authentication model is convenience. Forgot your password? You can reset it by receiving a link via email. Lost access to your account? You can contact the platform’s customer support team for assistance. All of this is possible because the platform centrally manages everything.

However, this model also has serious drawbacks. Centralized servers, where user data is concentrated, become prime targets for hackers. Frequent incidents of account credential leaks and user data breaches highlight these risks.

Another issue is that platforms can restrict user access at any time. For instance, if X (formerly Twitter) or YouTube suspends a specific account or channel, the user completely loses access to their created content and followers. Furthermore, if a service suddenly shuts down, users face similar issues.

In summary, the Web2 authentication model is based on "entrusting your digital identity to a platform." While this is convenient, the ultimate control lies with the platform, not the user.
‍

2.2. Web3: Cryptographic Ownership Model

The Web3 authentication system takes a fundamentally different approach from Web2. The key principle here is that "users directly own and control their digital identity (assets, data) rather than relying on a platform." This is made possible by public-key cryptography.

This technology generally consists of two keys: a private key (secret key) and a public key. The private key is a secret value known only to the user and is used to generate digital signatures. The public key is derived from the private key and allows others to verify the user's digital signature. A blockchain wallet address is generated from this public key.

The most distinctive feature of this authentication method is that it is "self-sovereign." Users directly manage their private keys, granting them full control over their digital assets and identity. They can access their assets without requiring approval or intervention from platforms or third parties.

This system provides several advantages. First, since there is no centralized database, it is not susceptible to large-scale hacking. Private keys are stored on users' devices or kept offline in hardware wallets. Hackers cannot steal millions of users’ data at once.

Additionally, Web3 authentication is highly censorship-resistant. While X (Twitter) can suspend your account, the Ethereum blockchain cannot block your transactions. Moreover, the Web3 authentication system supports high interoperability across services. A single wallet can be used to access various decentralized applications (dApps).

However, this model also has serious drawbacks. The biggest issue is that users are entirely responsible for managing their private keys. If a private key is lost, access to all associated digital assets is permanently lost. There is no "forgot password" button or customer support team to help.

Furthermore, the user experience can be complex. Installing a wallet like MetaMask, backing up private keys, and paying gas fees can be challenging for users unfamiliar with the technology.

Another critical issue with Web3 authentication is the potential for user errors. If assets are sent to the wrong address, there is no way to retrieve them. If a phishing attack tricks a user into revealing their private key, they can lose all their assets. These risks can be far more severe than simply forgetting an ID or password in Web2.

In summary, the Web3 authentication model is based on "direct ownership of digital identity." While it provides greater freedom and control, it also comes with increased responsibility and complexity.
‍

2.3. Balancing Usability and Decentralization

Recently, hybrid models have emerged that aim to combine the usability of Web2 with the self-sovereignty of Web3. One representative example is the "embedded wallet." Users log in using familiar methods such as email or social login, but in the backend, a blockchain-compatible wallet is generated, allowing users to utilize Web3 functionalities without managing private keys manually.

To achieve this, a technique called "key sharding" is employed, where a private key is split into multiple pieces and distributed among different parties, ensuring that no single entity can use the entire key. For instance, one fragment of the key may be stored by the service provider, another on the user’s device, and another in a third-party vault.

Another example is the "social recovery" mechanism. If a user loses their private key, they can regain access with the help of pre-designated trusted contacts (guardians).

These hybrid models offer several benefits. They make Web3 technology more accessible to general users, reduce the risks of loss and hacking, and significantly improve the user experience. Since users can access Web3 services without a complicated wallet setup process, the entry barrier is lower.

However, hybrid models also have limitations. Some degree of compromise is inevitable regarding Web3’s core principle of "absolute self-sovereignty." Additionally, they still require some level of trust in service providers. The increased technical complexity may also introduce new security vulnerabilities.

Currently, various companies are developing different hybrid solutions, striving to find the right balance between Web2’s convenience and Web3’s self-sovereignty.

In the future, a spectrum of solutions offering varying levels of decentralization and usability is expected to emerge, catering to different user needs and technical capabilities. Just like how individuals can choose between manually driving a car and using autonomous driving features, users will be able to select the level of control and convenience that best suits them.
‍

3. Redesigning the Data Management System

3.1. Web2: Platform-Centric Data Management

In the Web2 environment, data is primarily owned and managed by platform companies. Photos uploaded to Facebook, posts written on Instagram, and documents stored in Google Drive—all of these are technically stored on the platform’s servers and, in many cases, legally considered the platform's property.

To explain how this structure works, when a user uploads content, the data is transmitted to the platform’s servers. It is then stored in the platform’s database, and the platform retains full authority over its access, use, modification, and deletion. While most platforms provide users with access and management functions for their own data, the ultimate control remains with the platform.

This centralized data management model offers several practical advantages. First, it enables efficient large-scale data processing and storage. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft operate data centers worldwide, possessing the infrastructure to process vast amounts of data quickly and reliably.

Additionally, data backup and recovery are easy. Even if a user’s device is lost or damaged, data stored in the cloud remains secure. This provides a convenient experience, allowing users to access the same data across multiple devices.

However, the biggest problem with this model is the excessive concentration of power in platforms. Platforms analyze user data to target advertisements and, in some cases, share or sell data to third parties. Furthermore, platforms can censor or remove content based on their own policies, often leading to conflicts between "platform freedom" and "user freedom of expression." This issue frequently arises with X (formerly Twitter) under Elon Musk’s ownership.

Another issue is that users may lose access to their data if a service is discontinued or if platform policies change. Examples include Google shutting down various services or Facebook drastically altering its API access policies.

The Web2 data management model, under the guise of "free services," is essentially a "service exchange in return for data." Users gain convenience in exchange for relinquishing control over their data to the platform.
‍

3.2. Web3: User-Led Data Ownership

In Web3, the concept of data ownership is fundamentally different. In a blockchain-based Web3 environment, the goal is for users to directly own and control their data. This is not just a technical shift but a new paradigm for digital property rights on the internet.

To understand how data ownership works in Web3, it’s essential to review the fundamental principles of blockchain. A blockchain is a shared digital ledger maintained by a decentralized network of participants. All transactions are encrypted and recorded immutably, creating a reliable data storage system without central authority.

In Web3, user data is recorded on a blockchain or stored in decentralized storage solutions such as IPFS (InterPlanetary File System). The key difference is that access to and management of this data is controlled by the user's cryptographic keys. Unlike in Web2, the user—not the platform—holds the access rights and can grant or revoke them at will.

For example, NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) represent a prime example of a user-centric ownership model. When digital artwork, music, or game items are issued as NFTs, ownership is recorded on the blockchain and linked to the owner's wallet address. Unlike traditional digital assets, these items are owned by the user rather than the platform, ensuring that ownership persists even if the platform ceases operations.

Another example is Decentralized Identity (DID). Traditional identity verification relies on centralized providers like Google or Facebook. In contrast, Web3 allows users to manage their own identity verification and selectively disclose only necessary information when required.

The Web3 data ownership model offers several key advantages:

1. Censorship resistance – No centralized authority can arbitrarily delete content or restrict access.
2. Data portability – Users can move their data freely across different services.
3. Monetization opportunities – Users can receive direct compensation when third parties utilize their data.

However, this model also faces challenges. Storing large amounts of data on the blockchain remains costly due to scalability issues. Additionally, users bear full responsibility for managing their cryptographic keys. If a key is lost, access to associated data and assets is permanently lost.
‍

3.3. Combining Off-Chain and On-Chain Approaches

The Web2 and Web3 data ownership models each have strengths and weaknesses. As a result, hybrid approaches that combine the best of both worlds are emerging. These hybrid models aim to strike a balance between ease of use and true data ownership.

One such approach involves "off-chain data storage with on-chain access control." Here, large-scale data is stored using traditional cloud infrastructure, while blockchain-based smart contracts manage access rights. This method resolves blockchain’s storage cost issues while maintaining decentralized control over data access.

Another example is the "data-sharing federation" model, where multiple participants co-manage a data pool, making decisions about data usage and access through blockchain-based governance. This approach blends the efficiency of centralized platforms with the control of decentralized systems.

These hybrid data models are significant because:

1. They enable a gradual transition to Web3. A full shift to decentralization is difficult, so these intermediary models serve as a bridge.
2. They reshape the data economy. While Web2 platforms concentrate data value within corporations, hybrid models distribute the value more equitably among users, developers, and service providers.

A prominent example of this approach is Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN). These projects use community-driven infrastructure and data-sharing models governed by blockchain protocols.

For instance, Helium is a decentralized wireless network where individuals set up WiFi hotspots and are rewarded with tokens based on network usage. This combines the efficiency of centralized telecom infrastructure with decentralized ownership and governance.

Moreover, such models facilitate new forms of data governance. Instead of corporations or governments making data policies, communities can make collective decisions through decentralized governance frameworks. This introduces a more democratic and participatory approach to data use.

However, hybrid models also present challenges. They introduce greater technical complexity and lack clear legal frameworks, leading to regulatory uncertainty. Additionally, incentive structures must be carefully designed to ensure fair contributions and rewards for all participants.
‍

4. Transition in Authority Distribution Structure

4.1. Web2: Centralized Control Mechanism

In the Web2 environment, the authority distribution structure is thoroughly centralized. Beyond authentication systems and data management, platform operators retain ultimate decision-making power over all aspects of the ecosystem.

This centralized control mechanism is particularly evident in service governance. Platforms unilaterally establish and modify terms of service and community guidelines and have full discretion over their interpretation and enforcement. Users have only limited means to contest such decisions.

Control over the developer ecosystem is also concentrated within the platform. Platforms determine policies regarding app stores and developer APIs, thereby influencing the entire direction of innovation. When Apple changes its App Store commission policy or Facebook suddenly modifies API access, developers have no choice but to adapt or leave the platform.

Algorithmic control is another key element of centralized authority. Platforms dictate which content is shown to users based on algorithms aligned with their business objectives and values. These algorithms significantly influence information flow and public discourse yet operate opaquely, leaving users and content creators with limited understanding or influence over them.

The revenue distribution structure is also controlled solely by the platform. Whether it’s YouTube’s monetization model, artist compensation on streaming services, or commission structures on app stores, platforms unilaterally design and adjust these policies. Creators and developers must either comply or sacrifice visibility and accessibility.

While centralized control allows for efficient decision-making and a consistent user experience, it also introduces the risks of power abuse and innovation constraints.

4.2. Web3: Code-Based Access Management

Web3 fundamentally redesigns centralized authority structures. Beyond authentication and data ownership, governance and decision-making structures across the entire system become decentralized.

One of the core principles of Web3 is decentralized protocol governance. Major protocol changes and upgrades are determined through token-holder voting or DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) consensus. Examples include Ethereum’s EIP (Ethereum Improvement Proposal) process and Uniswap’s governance voting system, both of which exemplify community-driven decision-making.

Resource allocation mechanisms are also decentralized. Fund distribution and incentive structures at the protocol level are transparently decided and continuously adjusted. For instance, DeFi protocols like Compound and Aave automatically adjust interest rates and collateral ratios based on market conditions and governance decisions.

Decentralized dispute resolution mechanisms have also emerged. Instead of relying on a centralized arbitrator, projects like Kleros and Aragon have built decentralized court systems, where selected jurors stake tokens and issue transparent rulings.

Another key Web3 feature is protocol upgrade mechanisms. Some mainnets allow protocol upgrades to be executed transparently on-chain, eliminating the need for hard forks.

While Web3's authority distribution aims for a fairer and more transparent system, it also introduces challenges such as slower decision-making and low participation rates.

4.3. Real-World Hybrid Models and Systemic Challenges

In practice, Web2 and Web3 authority structures are increasingly being combined in various ways. These hybrid models seek to leverage the strengths of both approaches while mitigating their weaknesses.

One widely adopted approach is "progressive decentralization." Many projects start with a centralized team handling development and operations before gradually transferring governance power to the community. DeFi protocols like Uniswap and Compound have followed this model, initially leading development before introducing governance tokens and progressively handing decision-making authority to token holders.

Another key hybrid model is "authority-sharing through token distribution." Many recent projects have airdropped a significant portion of tokens to early users and the community. Some projects distribute around 50% of their total tokens via airdrops, while others allocate up to 56% to DAOs and early adopters. This represents a major shift from traditional models where teams and investors held the majority of tokens, instead redistributing platform value and governance rights to the community.

"Platform-DAO cooperation models" are also emerging, where traditional Web2 companies incorporate Web3 governance elements into their services. A Web2 platform might gradually introduce DAO-based fund allocation, or it might integrate blockchain-based community point systems to give users greater ownership and participation opportunities.

However, these hybrid models also face significant systemic challenges. One major issue is increasing governance participation. Many DAOs and protocol governance systems suffer from low voter turnout and decision-making dominated by a few large token holders (whales). In major DeFi protocols, governance voting participation rates often fall below 10% of total tokens.

Another critical issue is designing the right incentive structures. Simply granting voting rights based on token ownership can lead to short-term profit-driven decisions. As an alternative, some projects have introduced "time-weighted voting", where voting power increases based on how long tokens have been locked.

Balancing expertise and accessibility is also a challenge. Complex governance decisions require high levels of technical knowledge, which may discourage general users from participating. To address this, some DAOs implement "delegate voting", allowing users to delegate their voting power to experts.

Despite these challenges, the fusion of Web2 and Web3 authority structures represents an important experiment toward a more balanced digital ecosystem. This process raises fundamental questions about the redistribution of technological, economic, and social power, significantly influencing the future trajectory of the internet.
‍

5. Conclusion

Comparing the architectures of Web2 and Web3 reveals that both paradigms have distinct strengths and limitations. Web2 excels in user convenience and efficiency but suffers from centralized control issues, whereas Web3 promotes user sovereignty and decentralized governance but faces challenges in usability and scalability.

Rather than a complete shift from Web2 to Web3, the internet’s future is likely to evolve into a complementary hybrid structure. Emerging solutions such as embedded wallets, Wallet-as-a-Service, chain abstraction, account abstraction, partial decentralization services, and token-based governance are already paving the way for this transformation.

These hybrid models are not just technical compromises; they represent a fundamental redefinition of internet values. Changes in authentication systems, data management, and authority distribution all relate to the power balance between users and platforms. Web3 introduces the potential for redistributing digital power, which has been concentrated within a few dominant platforms over the past two decades.

Ultimately, the most important factor is the value delivered to users. Web3’s core principles of privacy, data sovereignty, and fair value distribution must be realized in a user-friendly manner to establish a truly new internet paradigm. The evolution of internet architecture will not be driven solely by technological innovation but also by user needs and broader societal consensus.