How DeFi Infrastructure Can Learn From Web2 Failures

Web3 emerged as a direct response to the limitations and structural flaws of Web2. And while DeFi is pushing the boundaries of ownership, coordination, and value exchange, it still risks inheriting the same design mistakes that made Web2 brittle, extractive, and closed.

If the goal is to build systems that scale with integrity and endure, then it’s worth asking: what did Web2 get wrong, and how can DeFi do better?

This article explores the most critical failures of Web2 infrastructure and proposes how modular, intent-driven systems in DeFi can evolve in a different direction.

The Illusion of Simplicity in Web2 UX

Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Uber built their success on surface-level simplicity. Interactions were designed to be fast, clean, and frictionless. A few taps, and the service was done.

But that simplicity was mostly an illusion.

Take the example of a ride-hailing app. You tap a button, and a car appears. Beneath that interaction, however, is a dense layer of logic that tracks your location, scores your behavior, manipulates prices, and manages driver incentives. You are not simply using a tool. You are entering a closed system where decisions are made on your behalf without clarity or consent.

This is the tradeoff Web2 embraced. Users were offered seamless UX in exchange for opacity. Complexity was buried behind layers of abstraction. Control and agency were quietly removed.

DeFi must not fall into the same trap. As projects focus on onboarding and usability, it’s tempting to hide risks or simplify too aggressively. But there is a line between easy and uninformed. Wallets that auto-approve transactions or disguise contract logic in the name of simplicity are creating dangerous habits.

The goal should be informed simplicity. Interfaces can reduce friction without removing agency. Contracts can be verified without overwhelming users. And context can be surfaced when it matters, without adding clutter.

Clarity does not mean complexity. It means control.

Centralized Scaling Was Fast, but Fragile

Web2 platforms scaled rapidly by centralizing infrastructure. Proprietary APIs, private data centers, and vendor lock-in allowed them to move fast. But this came with serious long-term costs.

Twitter’s developer ecosystem offers a perfect example. Early on, the platform encouraged developers to build tools and products on top of its open API. Over time, however, access was restricted or revoked as business priorities shifted. Developers who had invested years in building on the platform were cut off with little warning.

This wasn’t an isolated case. Across the board, Web2 companies followed the same arc. First they opened. Then they monetized. Then they locked in.

Technically, these systems were also brittle. Centralized architecture meant that performance bottlenecks, outages, or failures in one component could ripple across the entire stack. Updating software or scaling capacity required coordinated changes, often involving downtime or compatibility risks.

DeFi, on the other hand, can take a modular path. Rollups, shared sequencers, and data availability layers allow each component to evolve independently. Execution, settlement, identity, and routing can be handled by specialized layers that interoperate without relying on a central provider.

This makes systems more composable, more resilient, and ultimately more adaptable to user needs and market conditions.

Data Ownership Was Never the Priority

In Web2, the business model revolved around one thing: user data. Platforms monetized attention, behaviors, and personal content without meaningful user control or participation in the upside.

Instagram illustrates this perfectly. You upload photos, build a following, and drive engagement. But you do not control your audience, your monetization options, or how your data is used behind the scenes. The value you create feeds a system you do not own.

Web3 claims to reverse this dynamic. Self-custody, private keys, and decentralized identity are meant to return power to users. But the infrastructure must back that up in practice.

Giving someone a seed phrase is not the same as giving them sovereignty. If users are still blindly signing opaque smart contracts or connecting wallets to untrusted frontends, then the promise of self-ownership is incomplete.

A better approach to user data in DeFi includes:

• Interfaces that explain contract actions clearly before signature

• Portable identity and permissions that users can carry across apps

Projects like Lit Protocol, Privy, and Ceramic are already exploring these models. But wallet providers, infra teams, and UX designers must also commit to this vision. User-owned data only matters if the user can understand, manage, and revoke it easily.

Trustless Systems Still Require Trustworthy Design

One of the most overlooked lessons of Web2 is that so-called free platforms were never truly free. Their costs were hidden in surveillance, misaligned incentives, and abusive defaults.

Users turned to ad blockers not because they disliked ads in principle, but because the user experience had become so manipulative and bloated that it was impossible to trust.

In DeFi, we often talk about building “trustless” systems. But that does not remove the need for trustworthy interfaces. Smart contracts may be transparent, but if frontends abstract that logic or act autonomously, users are again left in the dark.

A trustworthy DeFi interface should provide:

• Visibility into how actions are triggered and executed

• Defaults that align with user goals, not just protocol incentives

Haust’s vision for intent-based UX and modular agents is built on this foundation. Agents should act as amplifiers of user will, not as hidden intermediaries. Users must remain the decision-makers, with systems adapting to them, not the other way around.

Interoperability Was Always an Afterthought in Web2

Web2 platforms became powerful by creating walled gardens. Their ecosystems were closed by design. Messaging systems, app stores, identity providers — all engineered to trap users inside.

The result is that switching costs became immense. Moving your photos from iCloud to Google Photos. Migrating contacts, files, subscriptions, or digital identities. None of it is easy. And it was never meant to be.

In most cases, by the time users demanded portability, it was too late. The platforms had already solidified their network effects and had no incentive to open up.

DeFi has the opportunity to avoid this fate by embracing interoperability from the start. Modular design, cross-chain messaging, and intent routing are not just technical patterns. They are survival mechanisms.

Protocols that work together by default, rather than competing for vertical control, are far more likely to endure. This is especially true as the number of users, chains, and applications grows.

Ecosystem-wide composability is not a feature. It is the foundation for longevity.

Better Infrastructure Starts With Better Assumptions

The problems with Web2 were not simply technical. They were structural. They reflected deliberate choices about who held power, what was prioritized, and how systems scaled.

DeFi has the chance to make different choices.

This requires committing to foundational principles from the very beginning:

• Infrastructure should be modular, verifiable, and permissionless

• Interfaces must respect user intent and deliver clarity, not confusion

The future of DeFi will not be defined solely by what we build. It will be shaped by the assumptions we make, the defaults we choose, and the trust we earn through design.

There is still time to get this right. The Web3 stack is still taking form. But that window will not stay open forever.

The next generation of infrastructure must not only be decentralized. It must also be humane.