"Truth is not found in light or darkness, but hidden in their intertwined quantum superposition state."
Prelude: glimpsing the light of three dimensions in a two-dimensional cage.
If you've ever stared blankly at a paper map under candlelight at night, you might feel that sense of being trapped in a two-dimensional world.
This is the original form of Web3 breaking through the map—a revolutionary attempt to escape the dimensions of traditional finance. In the genesis block of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto embedded a phrase: 'On January 3, 2009, the Chancellor was on the brink of the second round of bank bailout.'—this is not only a denunciation of the old system but also a declaration of a completely new thinking model.
However, fifteen years later, the rules of the game in Web3 have been pulled back into familiar two-dimensional dilemmas. When you flip open that K-card in the power playing cards, you will see the sharply dressed venture capital elite, their gaze sharp as laser beams, wearing a smile of assured victory, with a ruthless declaration inscribed on the card:
"Decentralized? I’m still your sugar daddy."
It is this K-card that reveals a profound information paradox—despite Web3 having distributed ledgers and open-source code, the core information regarding decision-making power, wealth distribution, and strategic direction is highly concentrated in the hands of a few VCs, forming a peculiar quantum state paradox: a seemingly distributed network, but in reality, centralized decision-making; a theoretically transparent system, but in practice, asymmetric information.
Nash dilemma: the prisoner's dilemma in consensus games.
The essence of Web3 financing can be perfectly explained by the 'prisoner's dilemma' in game theory. From a game theory perspective, the current Web3 investment and financing ecosystem is a suboptimal equilibrium:
Projects face choices:
Accept VC terms and obtain funding and endorsement, but lose some autonomy
Adhere to decentralization principles, but may lose funding support and market opportunities
Investors face choices:
Centralized control to ensure investment safety, but violates the spirit of Web3.
Give up control to support true decentralization, but increase investment risk.
Community members face choices:
Accept VC-dominated project acquisition for short-term benefits, but long-term rights are compromised.
Resist centralized projects to uphold principles, but may lose opportunities to participate.
Every participant in this system, even knowing that the current structure is not the optimal solution, cannot unilaterally change strategy—because under the existing rules, deviating from the mainstream strategy will incur penalties. This is why, despite knowing that the VC-dominated model contradicts the spirit of Web3, almost all participants are reinforcing this model.
As a well-known DAO founder privately admitted in 2023: 'We are all building a decentralized future in a centralized way, because no one wants to be the first to give up control.'
Information asymmetry: the true currency of power
In Web3, the true currency of power is not tokens, but information. VCs, as K-card holders, have a true advantage in creating and maintaining systemic information asymmetry:
Second-layer information advantage: project acquisition
VCs gain early access to quality projects through exclusive networks.
Data shows that top VCs have contact with 83% of 'star projects' before the seed round.
Ordinary investors can only participate after the token has appreciated by 5 to 50 times.
First-layer information advantage: internal data
VCs obtain detailed data and progress of projects through investment terms.
A 2022 survey showed that investment terms often include detailed data sharing requirements on a weekly or even daily basis.
This data is almost never disclosed to ordinary token holders.
Third-layer information advantage: exit timing
VCs often know when other institutions plan to reduce their holdings, forming implicit coordination.
Internal communication records show that many large-scale reductions are accompanied by prior communication among institutions.
Ordinary holders are completely at an informational disadvantage, often becoming the last buyers.
This multi-layered information asymmetry is the fundamental reason for the concentration of power in Web3, far more critical than token distribution. Even if a project claims to be 'community-owned,' when key information is monopolized, the real power remains firmly in the hands of K-card holders.
Therefore, merely adjusting the token distribution ratio cannot solve the fundamental issue—the real need is to reconstruct the way information flows.
Entropy-increasing dilemma: the thermodynamic paradox of decentralization.
From an information theory perspective, Web3 faces a paradox of increasing entropy. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy (disorder) of a closed system increases over time. However, in an information system, increasing entropy means a uniform distribution of information—that is, decentralization.
In theory, blockchain should be a system that promotes information entropy increase, allowing power to diffuse from the center to the periphery. However, what we observe in reality is a decrease in information entropy—power and information are concentrating back towards the center (VCs, exchanges, large protocols).
This anti-entropy phenomenon reveals that there exists a certain 'entropy reduction mechanism' in the current Web3 system—which is precisely the result of the traditional venture capital system merging with decentralized technology. VCs create localized 'low-entropy zones' in the system through various mechanisms (information monopoly, control of governance rights, liquidity management), achieving a reconcentration of power.
As an anonymous crypto fund analyst said in 2021: 'Blockchain creates the most transparent ledger in history, yet perpetuates the most opaque power structure in history.'
Multiple consensuses: the fracture between protocol layer vs social layer
The core tragedy of Web3 lies in the fracture of multi-layer consensus mechanisms:
Protocol layer consensus: secured by code and cryptography, highly decentralized.
Governance layer consensus: determined by token voting, superficially decentralized but essentially controlled by large holders.
Social layer consensus: formed by interactions among community members, theoretically decentralized but often manipulated.
Traditional VCs excel at achieving substantial centralized control by manipulating the governance and social consensus layers without touching the protocol layer consensus. The brilliance of this strategy lies in its ability to allow projects to claim 'technological decentralization' while maintaining a highly centralized decision structure.
A study in 2023 found that among the top 100 projects claiming to adopt decentralized governance, 92% of major decisions actually followed the preferences of major investors, even if these decisions were controversial within the community. This fracture of multi-layer consensus creates an illusion of 'decentralization'—on the surface, the community appears to be voting, but in reality, the outcome has long been predetermined in group chats.
Quantum superposition: the dual existence state of VCs.
K-card (VC) exists in a peculiar dual state in the Web3 ecosystem:
When it comes to risk-bearing, VCs are in a 'decentralization denial state'—emphasizing that they are traditionally risk capital and require sufficient control to ensure investment safety.
When discussing industry vision, VCs are in a 'decentralization affirmation state'—vividly depicting a non-centralized autonomous future.
This superposition state can be maintained indefinitely until it is 'observed' (i.e., faced with actual choices). But when the system needs to make actual decisions—such as benefit distribution, governance voting, or strategic direction—the superposition collapses, and reality emerges: centralized control almost always prevails.
Ironically, this dual state not only maintains the power structure but also creates a 'cognitive fold'—making community members simultaneously accept two contradictory realities: the vision of decentralization and the practice of centralization.
SYNBO protocol: systemic reconstruction of information entropy increase.
The revolutionary nature of the SYNBO protocol lies not only in redistributing tokens or adjusting governance structures but fundamentally reconstructing the way information flows and decisions are formed, creating a system that promotes information entropy increase rather than reduction.
The Position-of-Proof (PoP) mechanism fundamentally changes the way investment decisions are formed from an information theory perspective:
Information de-monopolization: investment decisions are no longer formed privately by a few elites, but transparently through a 72-hour public consensus cycle.
Entropy-increasing incentive mechanism: Alpha Brokers participate in decision-making by staking their Position Tokens, directly binding their interests to the judgment results, creating an 'information release' economic incentive.
Lowering the barrier to information access: anyone can become an Alpha Broker based on capability rather than capital scale, breaking the traditional VC information monopoly.
Multidimensional information integration: the system design allows Brokers from different backgrounds and expertise to contribute diverse viewpoints, creating a richer information field.
This design fundamentally changes the way information flows in the system, shifting from an 'information funnel' (concentrating towards the center) to an 'information diffuser' (radiating from the center outward).
Equally revolutionary is the Community Consensus Offering (CCO) model, which reconstructs the power structure of token issuance, ensuring information symmetry and interest alignment between early investors and long-term community members through a complete consensus-building system.
From the prisoner's dilemma to the Kelly criterion: a new equilibrium in game theory.
The design of SYNBO is not just a technical innovation, but a paradigm shift at the level of game theory—it transforms Web3 investment and financing from a 'prisoner's dilemma' to an information optimization game based on the 'Kelly Criterion.'
In the traditional model, parties are locked into a suboptimal Nash equilibrium, unable to unilaterally change strategies. However, the new game environment created by SYNBO allows for:
Information sharing becomes an advantage: Alpha Brokers can only gain long-term benefits by contributing genuine and effective judgments.
Long-term cooperation is incentivized: system design allows cooperative strategies in repeated games to yield higher returns.
Deceptive behavior is punished: the staking mechanism ensures that false information and manipulative actions lead to economic losses.
Collective wisdom is amplified: a diverse network of decision-makers can produce more accurate predictions and judgments.
This design allows the Web3 ecosystem to leap from a suboptimal Nash equilibrium to a more efficient and fair new equilibrium—in this state, the free flow of information and the widespread distribution of power are no longer idealistic but an inherent equilibrium point of the system.
The quantum collapse of K-card: from controllers to validators.
Under SYNBO's new paradigm, the role of K-card (VC) will undergo a 'quantum state collapse'—shifting from monopolizers of power to validators of value, from blockers of information to disseminators of information.
The value proposition of traditional VCs is built on information asymmetry—'We know more than you, so we control the flow of funds.' In the SYNBO ecosystem, however, the advantage of VCs comes from their analytical ability and professional judgment, not from information monopoly.
"I’m still your sugar daddy"'s ironic declaration will be replaced by a new kind of relationship: "I’m part of our consensus network." This is not a simple slogan change, but a fundamental shift in the essence of power—from vertical control to horizontal collaboration, from information monopoly to information sharing.
Under this new paradigm, traditional VCs with professional capabilities can thrive, but they must redefine their participation approach—not by obtaining excess returns through control and monopoly, but by providing high-quality judgments and facilitating consensus formation to create and share value.
Conclusion: A new financial order in quantum entanglement.
In quantum mechanics, entangled particles remain instantaneously connected regardless of the distance between them. Similarly, the new consensus network created by SYNBO tightly links the interests of all parties, forming a 'value entanglement'—the actions of any participant instantly affect the entire system, naturally creating a self-balancing and self-optimizing dynamic structure.
The traditional financial system is a pyramid built on centralized trust and information blockage; the original vision of Web3 is a network built on cryptographic verification and information equality. SYNBO combines the advantages of both, creating a new organizational form—preserving the value of professional judgment while ensuring the free flow of information.
When capital is no longer a tool of control but becomes a medium of consensus; when expertise is no longer a reason for monopoly but a way to contribute; when information is no longer the source of power but the foundation of collaboration—only then can Web3 truly transcend its technical surface and realize its revolutionary potential on the social level.
Under the sun in Dubai, when the complete power playing cards unveil their final veil, what we will see is not only a sharp critique of the status quo but also a new imagination of the future relationship between information and power—a new paradigm that moves information from closure to openness, from concentration to distribution, from monopoly to sharing.
"The real revolution is not to overthrow power, but to reconstruct information."—this is the ultimate transcendence over the K-card and the core vision of the SYNBO protocol.