This peer-reviewed academic article provides rigorous critical analysis of how Web3 technologies embody competing logics: expansive networks that genuinely distribute power and enable collective capacity, versus extractive networks that concentrate wealth and control through new mechanisms while claiming decentralization. Published in a leading interdisciplinary journal, the work applies political economy frameworks and power analysis to examine whether and how blockchain systems challenge or reproduce hierarchies. Rather than celebratory or dismissive, the analysis offers nuanced tools for distinguishing genuinely transformative decentralized approaches from those that merely transfer extraction to new elites—essential reading for anyone seeking to build or evaluate regenerative Web3 systems.
Key Highlights
-
Expansive vs. Extractive Framework: The article introduces analytical distinction between expansive networks (that enhance collective capacity, distribute decision-making power, and enable broad participation) and extractive networks (that concentrate value, limit governance access, and serve elite accumulation). This framework enables evaluating specific protocols rather than treating “Web3” as monolithic.
-
Power Concentration Through Code: The work examines how technical design choices—token distribution, governance mechanisms, protocol fees—concentrate or distribute power, showing that dec
entralization claims require scrutiny of actual power dynamics rather than accepting self-descriptions at face value.
-
Token Plutocracy Analysis: The article provides detailed critique of token-weighted governance, showing how this common Web3 pattern reproduces plutocracy (rule by the wealthy) despite decentralization rhetoric. The analysis demonstrates why one-token-one-vote systems advantage capital holders over diverse community participants.
-
New Forms of Enclosure: Drawing on commons theory, the work analyzes how Web3 platforms can enclose previously open resources through protocol control, fee extraction, and proprietary layers—creating new commons enclosures that concentrate benefits while distributing risks.
-
Labor and Value Extraction: The article examines how decentralized platforms extract value from unpaid community labor (governance participation, content creation, protocol improvement) while directing financial gains to token holders and founders—revealing continuities with platform capitalism’s exploitation patterns.
-
Legitimacy Through Decentralization Discourse: The work critically analyzes how “decentralization” functions rhetorically to legitimize systems that may not meaningfully distribute power, showing how the language of democracy can obscure plutocratic realities.
-
Alternatives and Possibilities: Unlike purely critical accounts, the article identifies design patterns that could enable genuinely expansive networks: quadratic voting, reputation-based governance, progressive fee structures, commons stewardship frameworks—showing that alternative approaches exist even if less common than extractive patterns.
Practical Applications
This analytical framework enables critical evaluation across Web3 contexts:
-
DAO designers can use the expansive/extractive framework as evaluation criteria during governance design, asking whether proposed mechanisms genuinely distribute decision-making power or concentrate it among token whales and founders despite participation theater
-
Protocol developers can apply the power concentration analysis to tokenomics and fee structures, designing mechanisms that direct value toward broad participants and ecosystem health rather than extracting toward early investors and platforms
-
Community participants can use the labor extraction critique to recognize and challenge dynamics where their governance work, content creation, or protocol improvements benefit token holders disproportionately—demanding compensation or governance changes
-
Funders and impact investors can employ the framework when evaluating whether Web3 projects serve collective benefit or individual accumulation, looking beyond decentralization claims to analyze actual power distributions
-
Researchers and critics can build on the article’s methodology to examine emerging protocols, documenting patterns of extraction and expansion to develop evidence base for which approaches genuinely distribute power
-
Policy advocates can reference the academic analysis when arguing for regulation that addresses power concentration in decentralized systems, showing that technical decentralization doesn’t automatically produce democratic outcomes
-
Social movement organizations can use the commons enclosure analysis to recognize and resist when Web3 projects enclose previously shared resources through protocol control
The rigorous scholarly approach provides credibility when challenging dominant Web3 narratives or advocating for alternative approaches.
Connection With SuperBenefit
-
The expansive versus extractive framework provides rigorous analytical tools for SuperBenefit’s power-aware approach, offering clear criteria to distinguish coordination systems that genuinely distribute decision-making power and enhance collective capacity from those that concentrate wealth through token plutocracy while claiming decentralization—the paper’s methodology enables evaluating whether specific protocols serve regenerative values or reproduce extraction with new technical infrastructure.
-
The detailed critique of token-weighted governance validates SuperBenefit’s exploration of alternatives like quadratic mechanisms and participation-based rights rather than one-token-one-vote systems, showing why capital-based governance reproduces plutocracy despite decentralization rhetoric—directly relevant to RPP’s multi-stakeholder governance challenges where equitable voice couldn’t depend on equal capital stakes.
-
The commons enclosure analysis helps SuperBenefit recognize when Web3 coordination tools risk enclosing previously shared resources through protocol fees and proprietary layers, informing the commitment to commons stewardship and ensuring that DAO primitives serve collective benefit rather than concentrating gains among early investors and founders.
Related Concepts
- Coordination - Mechanisms for collective decision-making
- Governance - Democratic and participatory frameworks
- Community - Network organizing and collaboration
- Power - Distribution and relational dynamics
- Sustainability - Regenerative coordination approaches