The Web3 industry seems to be running two completely different scripts simultaneously. One script is a grand narrative about information democratization and efficient value discovery, represented by sophisticated mechanisms like prediction markets, depicting an ideal decentralized future. The other script is a dark reality of code vulnerabilities, asset theft, and trust collapse, with the specter of security incidents always looming, instantly reverting countless innovations to their original forms. The ongoing struggle between these two forces—creation and destruction—is not a mere interlude in the industry but the core contradiction that defines its essence, current state, and future.

A Tale of Two Extremes: The Duality of Creation and Destruction in Web3

Prediction markets are an excellent example of understanding the creative power of Web3. They are not essentially gambling tools but rather decentralized information aggregators. By incentivizing participants with different information to bet real money on future events, the market price itself evolves into the collective best prediction of the probability of that event occurring. The core problem it attempts to solve is: how to efficiently condense fragmented private information scattered across the globe into a credible, public consensus. This is a mechanism of elegance, believing that through sophisticated rule design, "collective wisdom" can emerge that surpasses any single authority.

However, the brilliance of ideals is always overshadowed by the shadows of reality. On the other side of the industry is the continuous "massive bleeding." According to a historical report by GoPlus, in just one month (like November 2023), security incidents in the Web3 field caused a staggering loss of approximately $184 million. Events like the Balancer attack and Upbit theft once again highlight the fundamental ailment of smart contract vulnerabilities. These cold numbers remind us that no matter how grand the narrative of upper-layer applications (dApps) may be, their foundation is built on code. As long as there are flaws in the code, the entire value edifice built upon it may collapse in an instant. This immense tension between "building the future" and "repairing the present" constitutes the duality dilemma of industry development.

The Distribution and Plunder of the Cake: Stakeholder Analysis

Two different mechanisms have spawned two entirely different models of benefit distribution.

In the game of prediction markets, stakeholders form a potential positive-sum game. Information providers (i.e., bettors) profit from their market-leading judgments; information consumers (such as project parties and investors) can use the precise probabilities formed by the market to assist in decision-making and reduce uncertainty; platform providers maintain system operations by charging minimal fees. The core of the entire process is to "create" new, valuable information and reward the contributors of that information. Theoretically, all participants can benefit from this more efficient information market, and the cake gets bigger.

In contrast, security incidents represent a brutal zero-sum or even negative-sum game. Hackers are direct wealth plunderers, exploiting system vulnerabilities to claim assets as their own. Users' assets evaporate into thin air, making them direct victims. Project parties face not only financial losses but also the dual blow of reputational bankruptcy and user attrition. Meanwhile, auditing firms and security experts in the security industry may thrive due to this, but their essence is to play the role of "closing the barn door after the horse has bolted." In this game, wealth is not created but violently transferred and destroyed, damaging the trust and total value of the entire industry, with the cake ruthlessly smashed.

From Code to Consensus: The Transmission Path of Two Mechanisms

Prediction markets and security vulnerabilities represent two diametrically opposed logical transmission chains that profoundly influence the evolution of the industry.

The transmission path of prediction markets is constructive, starting from individual private information. This chain roughly follows: private information -> capital betting -> price discovery -> forming consensus -> external decision reference. This is a process that purifies and condenses dispersed, unordered individual cognition into highly concentrated collective judgment through market mechanisms. Its influence can extend from on-chain governance voting to predicting real-world business, technology, and even political events, possessing strong positive externalities.

In contrast, the transmission path of security vulnerabilities is destructive, beginning with a minor code defect. Its destructive chain typically follows: code defect -> hacker exploitation -> instant asset loss -> user panic and community FUD -> protocol trust collapse -> triggering chain liquidation or bank run -> overall industry image damage and increased regulatory pressure. This is a typical process where a "single point of failure" triggers a "systemic crisis." The destructive power starts from a technical detail and rapidly spreads to financial, social, and regulatory levels, with strong negative externalities; each major security incident consumes the trust capital that the entire industry has painstakingly accumulated.

Essential Insight: The Fragile Foundation of "Code is Law"

These two phenomena point to the core tenet of Web3—"Code is Law"—and its inherent fragility. This concept is the cornerstone of decentralized systems, replacing human ambiguous discretion with the certainty of machine execution, thereby creating a trustless interaction environment. This is both the source of its power and the root of its risks.

Prediction markets are the perfect embodiment of the "Code is Law" concept. They assume that code can perfectly and fairly execute a set of information game rules, ultimately producing unbiased truth. They believe that mathematics and code can construct a system purer and more efficient than human society.

However, security incidents ruthlessly interrogate this tenet. They reveal a simple truth: laws (code) are written by humans, and humans make mistakes. In the traditional world, laws have loopholes that can be remedied and corrected through courts, interpretations, and legislation. But in the immutable world of blockchain, once a "law" with loopholes is executed, the resulting harm is immediate and almost permanent. There are no appellate courts, only cold execution results. Therefore, the security issues of Web3 are not merely technical problems but structural challenges arising from its philosophical foundations.

Industry Insights: From "Single Point Innovation" to "System Resilience"

In the face of the dual opposition of creation and destruction, the future development path of the industry becomes clear. Merely being enamored with the sophisticated innovations of "superstructure" like prediction markets is far from enough, as the fragile "infrastructure" (i.e., security) could bring everything to zero at any moment.

The future evolutionary direction must proceed on two tracks. On one hand, it should continue to encourage and explore application-layer innovations that can bring real value. On the other hand, unprecedented resources and attention must be devoted to building the "system resilience" of the entire ecosystem. This includes but is not limited to:

1. Deepening Security Audits: Transforming security audits from a "check item" at project launch to a "required course" throughout the entire development cycle.
2. Developing Emergency Response Protocols: Establishing cross-project threat intelligence sharing and rapid response alliances to coordinate actions during attacks, minimizing losses.
3. Strengthening Developer Security Education: Reducing the generation of vulnerabilities from the source and raising the overall security level of the developer community.
4. Improving On-Chain Insurance and Financial Derivatives: Providing risk hedging tools for users and project parties, pricing and transferring inevitable risks.

Ultimately, whether the Web3 industry can transition from a high-risk experimental field to a mature and stable value network depends on its ability to effectively manage its destructive forces. When the overall "defense costs" of the industry can systematically be lower than the "attack gains," trust can truly settle down. Otherwise, no matter how beautiful the utopian narrative of prediction markets may be, it could instantly turn into a cruel digital wasteland in the face of a line of exploited code.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。