By Liu Xiaofan
(Professor, Department of Media and Communication, City University of Hong Kong, Eurybia Chief Scientist)
Figure 1 - NewspaperPreface
Web3 has become a buzzword in the tech industry. However, when we talk about Web3, confusion often arises. The field is flooded with terminology—from Bitcoin to Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, Metaverse, and more recently, Web3, Virtual Assets, and Tokenized Asset Markets. We might ask ourselves: why does one technical domain have so many names? This article doesn't aim to determine which term is the "correct" one, but rather seeks to explore why these concepts keep emerging and reveal the social construction logic behind them.
Bitcoin: The Prototype of a New World
Between 2008 and 2009, Bitcoin emerged as an internet-native currency, laying the foundation for future technological innovations. At the time, it was seen as a resistance against the traditional financial oligarchy, attempting to depict a utopian society where everyone was equal. Its core decentralized philosophy deeply reflected the spirit of Cypherpunk culture—using encryption technology to protect personal privacy and grant individuals economic autonomy. However, these ideas initially spread primarily within small circles of technical elites.
Satoshi Nakamoto's "Retreat" Becomes a Spiritual Symbol
In 2011, a symbolic event occurred—the disappearance of Satoshi Nakamoto, the author of the Bitcoin whitepaper, from the internet. This already anonymous founder became a mysterious hero, embodying the abstract ideals of freedom and decentralization beyond any individual. Nakamoto’s “retirement” not only made Bitcoin’s ideology seem purer but also elevated him to an almost religious figure.
Cryptocurrency: Hype, Bubbles, and Stigma
Since Bitcoin’s value was gradually recognized by the market in 2010, a series of other cryptocurrencies based on similar technological frameworks began to emerge, such as Litecoin launched in 2011. However, cryptocurrency faced awkward early use cases—it was frequently used for illegal transactions, especially on dark web markets, appearing to represent a "gray zone."
Interest Groups Behind the Terminology
As time progressed, cryptocurrencies became increasingly associated with market bubbles. In 2015, the Ethereum system launched, significantly lowering the cost of creating cryptocurrencies and giving rise to a speculative bubble-driven market. In 2018, the crypto market experienced its first major crash. By 2021, the DeFi (Decentralized Finance) and NFT (Non-Fungible Token) waves reignited investment frenzy, only to collapse again in 2022. With increasing global regulatory scrutiny and intervention, cryptocurrencies face mounting compliance pressures, further exacerbating their stigmatization.
The Birth of Blockchain and Reconstructed Meaning
Many people believe that "blockchain" appeared around the same time as Bitcoin, or even earlier—but this isn’t true. According to Google Trends data, the term "Blockchain" didn’t start being used to describe Bitcoin’s underlying distributed systems technology until between 2012 and 2013 [See chart]. Later, it was translated into Chinese as 区块链 ("qu kuai lian"). The emergence of the word "blockchain" served as a symbolic construction strategy, assigning new symbolic meaning to a technological stack. From then on, the technology was detached from the label of market speculation and took on a neutral, universal image—"the machine of trust." This allowed technology companies to confidently promote blockchain adoption across broader fields such as finance, supply chains, healthcare, and government data management. Of course, whether the market truly adopted the technology is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Figure 2 - Google TrendsMetaverse and Web3: Industry Self-Redemption
The cryptocurrency industry was well aware of its own stigma. It had long been trying to reposition itself using new terminology. Two of the most influential terms—Metaverse and Web3—are classic examples of repurposing old words.
The concept of Metaverse originates from the 1992 sci-fi novel Snow Crash, referring to a virtual world parallel to reality, complete with entertainment and economic systems. The crypto industry borrowed this idea to express its vision of rebuilding economic systems in the digital world. Unfortunately, the traditional tech industry quickly discovered the appeal of this term. When Facebook changed its name to Meta, the narrative of the Metaverse was completely rewritten, evolving into a vision of a digital world closely tied to VR and AR. This process revealed the struggle behind discourse manipulation: established tech giants outmaneuvered newcomers.
When Facebook rebranded to Meta, the narrative of the Metaverse was entirely reshaped. This process demonstrated the power struggle behind discourse control—how tech giants defeated emerging players.
Web3 was proposed by Gavin Wood in 2014 to represent an ideal internet driven by cryptocurrencies and user sovereignty (you may have heard the famous slogan: “read, write, own”). However, the concept remained marginal until it was rediscovered in 2021 and has since gained widespread usage.
What we should see in both terms is that the naming of technologies and industries is essentially a process of social construction. Behind each word stands an interest group striving to influence society through various means.
Local Markets: Policy-Driven Innovation
Today, countless terms have emerged globally from the cryptocurrency space, with each country and region having its preferred expressions. For example, the Hong Kong government aims to establish itself as a global hub for the digital economy by building stable markets through specific use cases and regulatory frameworks, thus preserving its status as an international financial center. Currently, the most commonly used terms in Hong Kong are Virtual Asset, Tokenized Asset, Real World Asset, and Web 3.0. They share a common trait: they attempt to distance themselves from the speculative and bubbly image of cryptocurrencies by using more neutral language, hoping to rebuild public trust and reshape narratives.
Conceptual Innovation Isn’t Always Technological Innovation
I won’t go into detail here about the subtle differences behind each term, the interest groups involved, or their overt and covert strategies. However, it’s worth noting: some reflect the crypto industry’s pursuit of legitimacy, some indicate the acceptance of tech narratives within traditional finance, and others remain somewhat ambiguous in intent.
Conclusion: There Is Nothing New Under the Sun
As we’ve seen, every new concept—from Bitcoin to Blockchain, from Cryptocurrency to Web3 and Tokenized Asset Markets—has its own logic of social construction behind it. Conceptual innovation is not necessarily technological progress; it may simply be a discursive reshaping by different interest groups responding to market changes, aiming to attract users and capital. Likewise, conceptual replacement does not eliminate risks—it merely hides them within new labyrinths. No matter how terms evolve, we must clearly recognize that human nature remains unchanged.
Financial markets, whether traditional or emerging, are always turbulent waters—whether you're a novice or a seasoned veteran.