How centralized power hijacks Web3’s future

The following is a guest post by Tim Delhaes, CEO & Co-founder of Grindery.

The mood in crypto has shifted.

For some, it’s full-blown nihilism—Web3 has become a rigged casino, an insider’s game where those with the right connections print wealth at the expense of everyone else. The LIBRA scandal laid bare what many suspected but few could prove: a coordinated playbook where hype, exclusivity, and controlled liquidity create a mirage of opportunity, only for insiders to cash out at the peak, leaving retail investors with dust. The recent Bybit hack only reinforced the sense of disillusionment—security failures, insider games, and extractive behavior seem to define the space more than innovation ever did.

For others, this is the wake-up call we needed. The illusion has been shattered, but the mission remains. Now that the mechanics of these schemes are exposed, we have a choice: continue down the same road, rewarding short-term speculation, or take a hard look at the systems we are building and demand better.

The danger isn’t just regulation – it’s the return of centralized gatekeepers

While many are focused on the potential regulatory shifts— led by the prospect of looser enforcement and clearer industry-specific regulations in the U.S. — and the dream of another bull run, the real threat is already here.

Take Telegram. Long considered one of Web3’s most essential platforms, it has quietly pivoted to align with U.S. regulators and Big Tech players, enforcing monopolistic restrictions on blockchain development. This is a familiar playbook: Apple’s App Store 2.0, but for crypto. Controlling access, dictating which chains get visibility, and reshaping the ecosystem on their terms.

We’ve seen this before. Web2 was supposed to be open—until a handful of corporations consolidated power, built walled gardens, and turned the internet into a rent-seeking empire. And yet, instead of pushing back, much of Web3 remains distracted by the next fleeting hype cycle: memecoins, vaporware projects, and hamster-themed casino tokens.

Bitcoin’s origin wasn’t about convenience—it was about resistance. Web3 wasn’t supposed to replicate traditional finance; it was supposed to replace it with something better. But decentralization is hard, and without a clear commitment to its principles, we are watching the industry slip back into the hands of centralized players.

Regulation won’t save us, and it was never supposed to

Some argue that regulatory action could curb this trend, much like the EU forcing Apple to open up its payment systems. But counting on regulators to protect Web3 is a fool’s errand. Governments act in their own interests, and when crypto’s dominant narrative is speculation over substance, it’s not hard to see why policymakers view it as an industry worth containing rather than fostering.

The real question isn’t whether regulators will intervene. It’s whether Web3 can still prove it has a purpose beyond gambling.

The road ahead: stop rewarding empty hype

The solutions aren’t abstract, they’re actually structural. We know how this ends if we let monopolistic control go unchecked. We know that platforms with centralized gatekeepers will always prioritize profit over principles. We know that “security” and “user protection” are often just PR-friendly euphemisms for control.

And yet, instead of funding and building real alternatives, we’ve been handing the spotlight as well as liquidity to the same schemes that make Web3 look like a Ponzi playground instead of a real technological movement.

This isn’t just about ideology; it’s about survival. Censorship resistance, interoperability, and decentralized control aren’t just moral stances—they are Web3’s only real competitive advantages. The moment we start mimicking Web2’s monopolistic models, we lose everything that made crypto worth fighting for.

The path forward is clear: open systems, cross-chain accessibility, and ruthless resistance to centralized control. If Web3 continues to prioritize speculation over infrastructure, hype over substance, and quick flips over long-term innovation, we will have no one to blame for its downfall but ourselves.

Mentioned in this article