<h2>Pseudonymity origin in crypto and web3</h2><p dir="ltr">Although <strong>cryptocurrency</strong> has just become more widely known, its roots can be seen in the early days of internet culture. David Chaum, a computer scientist, first proposed eCash, a type of electronic money, in 1983. He discussed the use of cryptographically signed messages to enable secure communications between digital pseudonyms two years later. However, it wasn't until the early 1990s that pseudonymous identities and computerized transactions were integrated into a full-fledged cultural movement. The Bay Area's Cypherpunks were a group of computer scientists dedicated to protecting online privacy on a web that is becoming more corporate. A movement was started after they created a mailing list and circulated a manifesto.</p><p dir="ltr">To say that the crypto space as we know it would not exist without the cypherpunks is not an understatement. Hashcash, the cryptographic proof-of-work (POW) system used by Bitcoin, was created by one list member named Adam Back.</p><p dir="ltr">Of course, it is impossible to ignore the most well-known instance of pseudonymity in the development of cryptography: Nakamoto himself. While the identity of the person who created Bitcoin has been the subject of countless arguments, conversations, and investigations, it is still a mystery as of this writing. Naturally, Finney, Back, and Szabo have all been suspected of being the person using the Nakamoto pseudonym at various points; all three have strenuously denied it.</p><p dir="ltr">What cannot be disputed is that cryptography has always been thought of as a technique to protect online anonymity through the use of fictitious names or even just verifiable digital signatures. The ability to associate a certain transaction with a specific person without requesting their identity was crucial. Three decades after the cypherpunk movement initially took off, it is obvious that this component of cryptography has the ability to steer clear of the increasingly pointless discussions around online privacy. And nowhere is it more evident than in the rapidly expanding web3 and&nbsp; NFT industry.</p><h2>The problems with anonymity and pseudonymity</h2><h3>Broader adoption is impeded</h3><p dir="ltr">What is the next step of crypto development? Many people believe that the goal should be to boost adoption while focusing on security and stability. When asked where the next $1,000,000,000+ will come from, many people point to institutions; this trend feels natural.</p><p dir="ltr">Will institutions feel safe in an atmosphere where NFT Twitter profiles claim net worths in excess of $1,000,000? Their statements may be genuine, but they will not, in my opinion.&nbsp; Adoption is discouraged by anons. It reminds us of the usual criticisms leveled towards cryptocurrency: “vague”, "dark" and "unidentifiable"</p><p dir="ltr">While these perspectives are inaccurate, anonymous contributors are not assisting us in changing them. Billion-dollar corporations need confidence and transparency; they aren't interested in allure, "fun," or personal liberty; they want competitive returns and verifiable data. Facts are difficult to interpret when people use pseudonyms.</p><p class="prosemirror-p-center"><img src="https://cdn.builder.news/news/11ed28097b32c09ea8e6023f659fee92.jpg" alt="nft pseudo" title="nft pseudo" width="600" height="294" class="lykafe0"></p><p class="prosemirror-p-center"><em>Source: Internet</em></p><h3>Accountability lacking</h3><p dir="ltr">Why do we like anonymous people? Many people are concerned about the uncertainty. Behind an NFT PFP may be Leonardo DiCaprio's incredible crypto expertise, Zhu Su's second account pontificating, or a plain adolescent from Illinois.</p><p dir="ltr">While we fear that this is not always the case, this fascination and mystery are felt by every DeFi participant who has encountered an anon. Who is this individual? What is their plan? It's daunting, with some people keeping their mouths shut or fearing retribution. Anons are ruthless. Look at the Hop forums today to see how they lack responsibility. Brute takes are crucial for making decisions, but let's avoid cultivating a culture where they are limited to new accounts or creative names. Is this beneficial?</p><p class="prosemirror-p-center"><img src="https://cdn.builder.news/news/11ed28097b32d138a8e6023f659fee92.jpg" alt="pseudo comment" title="pseudo comment" width="600" height="451" class="lykafe1"></p><h3>Hinder to DAO’s operation</h3><p dir="ltr">Anons complicate the operational aspect of DAO growth and management by hopping in and out of forums as they like.</p><p dir="ltr">If you want to do things in detail with an anon, where can you find him on Discord? How can you make a Zoom call? This is also true with Multi-Sigs, which are an important part of a DAO's identification. What happens if they aren't present? QL-crypto, you were a little difficult to find for our final signature.</p><p dir="ltr">Consider Wonderland: 0xSifu, a fundamental signer of the multi-sig, was a previously convicted felon who controlled 15 of the keys. It took two days after learning about his past life to replace this signer, who had previously wielded the ability and influence to shift the entire trajectory.</p><p dir="ltr">Finally, the risk of anonymity, particularly in DAOs, is multifaceted. Who is this individual? Will they be available when we need them? Are they legal or a risk?</p><p dir="ltr">As the number of DAOs and crypto organizations grows, so does the necessity of dependability — we must be cautious while evaluating anon's roles.</p><h2>The importance of accountability</h2><p dir="ltr">Reporter Katie Notopoulos for BuzzFeed unearthed the identities of the Bored Ape Yacht Club's two fictitious founders in February 2022. On Twitter, the founders maintain anonymity, but in official business records, they use their true names. After some research, it was rather easy for the media to ascertain their identities, which was eventually expected from the founder's point of view. Notopoulos suggested that using a pseudonym for a project the size of Byker would lessen the founder's responsibility in the face of public criticism. In a way, she was also correct.</p><p dir="ltr">The formerly unnamed co-founder of Azuki, ZAGABOND, just released a Mirror piece titled "A Builder's Journey." This blog article is intended to demonstrate the seriousness of investing during a bear market, but it also discloses that ZAGABOND was responsible for three failed ventures, including CryptoZunks, Tendies, and Phunks. In the NFT community, this caused indignation and discussion, and many people accused him of deceit, gender induction, and other unethical behavior. After hearing the news, Azuki's reserve price was reduced by roughly two-thirds in less than 24 hours.</p><p dir="ltr">Instead of admitting any wrongdoing, ZAGABOND addressed the product-market mismatch and the gap between creator/consumer expectations in a Twitter Space with Andrew Wang.</p><p dir="ltr">In any innovation, there are both good and negative actors. But, with Web3's privacy, and, oddly, in a domain built on distrust, trust is more vital than ever. The same concept applies to people we let influence our ideas and purchasing behavior. Unfortunately, in some circumstances, bad actors employ anonymity as a mask for unethical acts such as hacking, smuggling, insider trading, pumping, and dumping.</p><h2>Everything has two sides</h2><p dir="ltr">However, not all alternative identities are evil. Anonymous identities can be used for self-expression or as a psychological "restart," allowing people to "be" online who they cannot be in real life. Using an independent identity might enable people of underrepresented or underprivileged communities to avoid bias and harassment while also gaining access to opportunities they might not otherwise be capable of affording in real life.</p><p dir="ltr">This is a significant advantage that former Coinbase CTO and recognized generalist Balaji Srinivasan outlined extensively during his lecture at the Crypto and Hayek Conference.</p><p dir="ltr">In his speech, he said: "The pseudonym economy is the bedrock of a robust classical liberalism that can compete in today's digital environment." Rather than stupidly urging people to be gender- or race-neutral, or to eliminate or refrain from discriminating online, we employ lifelike avatars and features. Full pseudonyms eliminate such information and make it hard for individuals to do it."</p><p dir="ltr">Anonymity may add value to a creator's work by creating a feeling of mystery across the world and promoting further customer demand. Would Bansky's artwork sell as well if people knew who he was? Perhaps, but we'll never know.</p><p class="prosemirror-p-right"><em><strong>Written by Blue Pine</strong></em></p><div class="pr-block-special"><strong>Disclaimer:</strong><br>This article is intended for and only to be used for reference purposes only. No such information provided constitutes advice or a recommendation that any investment or trading strategy is suitable for any specific name.</div>

Web3 help us in many aspects, yet, it came with many problems as well. One of those is the identity problem.

Web3's Identity Problem: Who Would Be Held Accountable?