Introduction

Earlier this year, Twitter axed third-party apps without warning. A few weeks later, it removed free API access — its cheapest package now costs $42k per month. What’s the solution you ask? - DeSoc is here but not fully yet, let’s explore

The real value of platforms like Twitter and Facebook comes from their social networks. While features such as Clubhouse spaces, Snapchat stories, and TikTok/Douyin short-form videos are just commodities, platforms with weak social networks tend to discourage users and face a downward spiral.

Twitter introduced many of its innovative features, such as pull-to-refresh and image embedding in tweets, through third-party clients. Similarly, Facebook experienced a similar cycle of innovation when it was open access, enabling apps like Zynga, Buzzfeed, Pinterest, and others to utilize Facebook’s social graph and newsfeed for distribution.

Decentralized social networks (DeSoc) aim to give users more control and value from their social graphs. By removing rent-seeking practices and encouraging competition, these networks can provide better products and features, benefiting users overall.

I’ll look in depth on 2 most promising DeSoc protocols at the moment i.e, Farcaster and Lens from various angles and the start will be from architecture POV.

Protocol Architecture(Lens)

Lens Protocol is a fully decentralized protocol on the Polygon blockchain, it utilizes Polygon PoS, offering a shared block space with speedy transactions. Momoka, Lens’ new addition,is a Data Availability layer that takes scalability to the next level by processing transactions off-chain, reducing costs, and ensuring a seamless experience.

To use the Lens Protocol, you need a “Profile” NFT, which serves as a unique ID tied to a wallet address, giving the owner control over the profile. With this Profile NFT, you can publish content, set up a follow module, choose an avatar, and configure a dispatcher.

Your Lens Profile NFT allows you to post three types of content: posts, comments, and mirrors. These publications are stored in your wallet and have a ContentURI linking to the actual content, which could be on decentralized platforms like Arweave or IPFS, or traditional storage like AWS S3.
Each publication includes two modules: the Collect Module and the Reference Module. The Collect Module lets others mint your publication as an NFT, while the Reference Module manages comments and mirrors. Comments must adhere to the rules set by the Reference Module of the original publication.

The Collect Module also allows creators to set prices for their content. Instead of just following a profile, users receive a Follow NFT, which can have customizable conditions, including payments. Follow NFTs also offer governance features, enabling vote delegation and the creation of Social DAOs within Lens.

In 2023, Lens Protocol raised $15 million and are currently seeking additional $50 million at a $500 million valuation.

Lens also recently announced their relocation to Ethereum via making their own L2 using zkSync Era SDK, which would further increase decentralization and monetization of the protocol.

Protocol Architecture(farcaster)

Farcaster is a sufficiently decentralized protocol developed by Merkle Manufactory that is built on top of the Ethereum L1 blockchain where the L1 manages user identities which is fully decentralized thanks to Ethereum, while the protocol utilizes an off-chain peer-to-peer network to propagate updates between its users, known as Farcaster Hubs which are centralized.

Farcaster IDs and Ethereum address ownership are managed through Farcaster's Ethereum contracts, ensuring that identities are decentralized and secure.

The primary namespace is fully decentralized, meaning once you register an ID (e.g., @918392), it cannot be taken from you. However, the secondary namespace, which governs handling disputes and is stored on the hubs offchain, can remove inappropriate or falsely registered handles (e.g., @jeffbezos).

Users link their Farcaster IDs (FIDs) to an Ethereum address, known as the custody address. Once an FID is claimed, the protocol does not allow anyone to reclaim or revoke it.
An account can choose between two kinds of usernames:
Offchain ENS Names: free and controlled by farcaster. (e.g. @nitin)
Onchain ENS Names: costs money and controlled by your wallet. (e.g. @nitin.eth)

Fnames must be renewed annually and require payment of a fee to the Farcaster Name Registry, which issues each name as an NFT.

To maintain messages on the Farcaster network, accounts must pay a rent fee. This rent helps prevent spam. Users can rent storage by making an on-chain transaction to the Storage Registry. Currently, renting a unit of storage costs $7 for a year and allows an account to store a set number of messages of each type(comments, likes, posts etc.)

The other unique thing in Farcaster protocol which differentiates it from other DeSoc’s is the consensus mechanism implemented in the off chain storage using the hubs, which takes on the theory that social networks don't need perfect ordering like blockchains where a single transaction order can dissolve the utility of the underlying blockchain, little harm is done if Alice’s posts show up in your feed before Bob’s.

Farcaster’s consensus model - the deltagraph - uses CRDTs, which can reach consensus without coordination but do not guarantee a global order.

A deltagraph is made up of deltas, which are the atomic units of change(like increase in the number of posts, likes etc.). Deltas are stored on nodes, servers that accept them from users and forward them to other nodes.

The deltagraph organizes deltas into sets and graphs. A set maps to something a user can do, like posting a message. It will store deltas related to that action and enforce rules. A graph is a collection of sets that belong to a user.

Distinct Features(Lens)

• Lens stands out due to its expandable functionality, where Profiles and other elements have modular components that enhance their capabilities.

• Once a Lens Handle is created, it is for lifetime.

• Lens operates on a contract-based system, allowing each contract to be deployed with its own set of rules.

• Additionally, Lens’s open actions feature allows custom actions to be embedded in posts, enabling functionalities such as payments, NFT creation, and token issuance. This approach is similar to the frames being introduced in the Lens ecosystem.

  Distinct Features(Farcaster)

• Account recovery is a feature available on Lens that isn't commonly found in other decentralized social networks (DeSoc), though it can be complex for average users to understand.

• On Farcaster, handle renewal is required annually.

• Proposing protocol changes on Farcaster involves upgrading all hubs to support these changes, similar to other open-source projects.

• A notable feature on Farcaster is Frames, which are interactive elements like pictures and buttons that reveal more content when clicked. This interaction allows tracking of user engagement and can tailor the experience based on social graph data.

• Users can issue keys to allow apps to post messages on their behalf. Typically, users provide a key for each Farcaster app they use, with keys managed through the KeyRegistry contract.

Clients and Apps Ecosystem

On Lens, there are multiple clients including Hey.xyz, Buttrfly, Orb, and Phaver and they all are interoperable with each other but there is a problem.

Lens has multiple clients which are not that different and are only getting engagement cause of cross-client posts with lens and are engagement farming for the token drop at best for each client.

On Farcaster, there are Warp Cast(native client by Merkle), Supercast(signup with email only, share access), yup, paragraph, bountycaster, launchcaster, alfafrens etc. This list includes many clients and also many Dapps(bountycaster, launchcaster, alfafrens) built on top of Farcaster Social Graph which is not seen in Lens till now.

Many of the above clients and Dapps are quite innovative and not mere copy of other clients like in Lens but the problem stays that apart from some unique utility based Dapps(bountycaster, launchcaster) all other are only farmed by Airdrop farmers and then left barren.

Memes/Tokens/Local Economy

The Based Summer Event by Coinbase significantly boosted user adoption of Farcaster after its full release in October 2023. This event also introduced novel token distribution methods that were new to the space, although Lens is catching up with similar practices.

Some token distribution methods seen on Farcaster include:

• Social Distribution: Also known as allowance tipping, this method involves giving users voting power to allocate capital or resources. It's a way to reward contributors to a project. However, this approach faced issues with Sybil attacks, and there are concerns about sustainability when token reserves are depleted and how to address the lack of tipping.

• Rounds.wtf: Developed by Nouns co-founder @seneca, this mechanism distributes rewards based on community contributions. Rounds allocates grants retroactively through Frames, where community members post memes and receive small ETH rewards at the end of each round, which can be claimed through the Frames interface.

• Some Notable Social tokens on Farcaster are $DEGEN, $TN100X, $NOUN and on Lens there is only a single big token used in tips that is $BONSAI, there is a lot of way to go for these tokens to be sybil resistant.

GTM(Lens)

Like Farcaster, Lens aspires to be a neutral base layer that promotes competition among applications and clients built on top of it.

However, Lens's go-to-market strategy is somewhat unclear. Its user base includes a mix of crypto enthusiasts, creators, developers, and airdrop farmers, which may lead to a diverse range of interests and reduced user engagement. This is reflected in its relatively low daily active users (DAU) to monthly active users (MAU) ratio.

Stani is going with the vision of a whole ecosystem named Avara which consists of Defi protocol Aave, $GHO, a wallet named Family and Social platform Lens which kind of completes what a user would do on the web3 and trying to make them all composable with each other is the GTM strategy at the moment.

And Lens suffers heavily from sybils and bot cause of low transaction fee on polygon and no measures taken at the moment.

GTM(farcaster)

Farcaster is adopting a strategy reminiscent of early Twitter, where various private clients introduced new features before Twitter itself did.

Its go-to-market strategy is focused on curating a tech-savvy Western community, including individuals from Web2, Web3, and venture capital sectors. Targeting tech enthusiasts is a strategic move, as they are typically early adopters and more likely to engage with and contribute to open-source protocols.

This approach has already fostered a vibrant developer community, with numerous applications utilizing Farcaster’s social graph. A similar dynamic to what Instagram and Vine introduced to Twitter a decade ago could emerge within Farcaster's ecosystem.

Pro/Cons(Lens)

Pros

By tokenizing content and profiles, Lens positions itself as an "asset-first" social media platform. This means that everything—profiles, posts, and interactions—is treated as an asset and stored as NFTs, which could potentially grow indefinitely.

Lens’s approach is advantageous because it leverages NFTs and various contracts to manage social graphs and posts, allowing for scalable and flexible growth.

Unlike Farcaster, Lens benefits from the existing validation infrastructure of the Polygon blockchain, making it as decentralized and permissionless as Polygon itself.

Cons

Many user actions involve read/write operations on Polygon smart contracts, issues with latency and throughput can arise, especially during periods of high network usage or instability.

Additionally, Lens lacks content categorization features, which may complicate organization for users who want to sort their posts by specific themes or topics.

Lens’s server architecture tends to verticalize topics in different clients. This fragmentation of the user base reduces use cases and diminishes opportunities for serendipitous discovery.

Pro/Cons(farcaster)

Pro

Farcaster focuses on fostering high-quality conversations by charging users for their profiles, which supports the Hubs and ensures user commitment. The platform serves as a "boiling pot" of diverse interests, topics, and languages.

Farcaster also allows content categorization, which helps users organize and manage different types of posts more effectively. This feature enhances the ability to curate one's social media presence.

Cons

However, Hubs on Farcaster have a size limitation for the delta graph, capped at 64TB. In contrast, Lens offers a more straightforward approach where users own everything and have the ability to destroy or burn content if needed.

Current State of Affairs

Lens

Farcaster has provided us with the most insightful content, while Lens has a unique experience focused on creators.

Lens is ideal for creators and artists, but overall engagement seems low. Despite receiving numerous likes and mirrors, interactions through comments are scarce, which suggests that the followers and likes might not be genuinely engaged. However, Lens excels in technology and features like setting follow rules, collecting posts, and using Wav3s for paid follower conditions.

Developers in the Lens ecosystem are also collaborating with the Open Frames team to refine the Frame specification. This integration will allow developers to use Frames as their frontend, simplifying the process and avoiding the need to create custom front ends for each open action.

Farcaster

Farcaster’s centralized structure allows it to swiftly adapt to user feedback, iterate quickly, and achieve product-market fit. Its robust architecture is designed to scale for millions of users, and Merkle’s venture capital backing offers valuable financial and networking support for growth.

Early experiments on Farcaster include creating higher-quality feeds and gating communities based on users’ NFT collections.

Initially, Farcaster’s gradual, manual onboarding process helped build a strong community culture and deter bots, ensuring high-quality interactions and content. However, this changed with the public launch of Warpcast, which attracted influential Twitter users who engaged in pump-and-dump activities, as seen with social tokens like $DEGEN and $HIGHER.

Both Farcaster and Lens are fostering the development of tokenized games, prediction markets, and tools for better data aggregation. These innovations hint at a promising future, as evidenced by emerging platforms like Launchcaster.

But there is a problem in both, read below

A recurring pattern is observed where financial capital inflates the value of underdeveloped assets, creating a bubble. This effect is especially noticeable when retail investors pour in excitement over new technologies and speculative financial activities. However, the pace of actual product development is slower than the speed of speculation and the expectations surrounding new technologies. In the case of Farcaster, this discrepancy highlights the gap between the rapid financial hype and the slower, more deliberate process of technological innovation.

Improvements that can be done(Lens)

• Many popular apps built on Lens currently lack a refined user experience, raising concerns about the platform’s scalability with its existing architecture.

• The future maintenance of the Lens protocol is uncertain. It may eventually adopt a fee model similar to Zora and Mirror, which would involve taking a percentage of fund flows on the platform to support its operations.

Improvements that can be done(Farcaster)

• This situation is similar to Clubhouse using Twitter or Instagram's social graphs at launch, like how Farcaster could leverage existing social networks.

• Merkle will need to demonstrate its credibility in maintaining neutrality, as both the protocol and its main client are currently developed by a centralized team. VC backing might also impact perceptions of its neutrality.

• Additionally, Merkle's first-mover advantage and early knowledge of protocol developments could lead its default client to overshadow third-party clients.

• The main concern is how Farcaster will decentralize over time. It’s important to make it easier for developers to run Hubs and ensure third-party developers can compete fairly with Warpcast.

What DeSoc need to be

The core issue with SocialFi apps is their heavy dependence on financial incentives. As these incentives wane, user engagement often diminishes, leading to a decline in participation as airdrop farmers leave and only Sybil accounts remain.

While monetization boosts revenue for creators, most users don’t initially think about financial gain when they start using a social app. For them, social media is more about interaction and content than financial rewards.

Although speculation and financialization are intriguing aspects of SocialFi, they shouldn’t be the primary selling points. The real value proposition should focus on social innovation and new use cases to drive growth and engagement.

DeSoc platforms seem promising as the future of social networking, but they face a significant challenge: practical utility. While they have the potential to rival Instagram and Twitter in entertainment value with the right network effects, they currently offer little beyond decentralization ideals. Some potential experiments to enhance practical utility include:

• Web3 Social Graph Ads: Using zero-knowledge proofs (ZK) to protect privacy while delivering ads based on the social graph.

• Tokenizing Intellectual Property: Creating practical use cases by tokenizing content IP(see Story Protocol)

• Attention Economy: Transitioning from purely financial products to those that engage users in the attention economy.

These SocialFi protocols struggle with social capital, as attracting genuine contributors without incentives is challenging. Incentives come in two forms: tokens (revenue) and the public audience. The latter is hard to cultivate because users are often driven by financial gains, making it difficult to shift to new platforms without significant incentives.

Building social platforms that enable Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) to directly reward their communities could create a powerful flywheel effect for social capital growth, reminiscent of the acceleration seen in Ponzi schemes.

Spam and bots are common across social media, but crypto addresses’ financial history can serve as an effective filter. Users have established their social networks and status on existing platforms, and switching to new ones without substantial incentives can be challenging, as seen with Bitcloud’s failure due to lack of differentiation.

On the other hand, platforms like Orb and Warpcast embrace Web3 ideals of ownership and decentralization, aligning well with these concepts

The value of a network grows as more people join and use it. Therefore, new networks initially have minimal value, making it difficult to attract and retain early users. Even once a niche community is established, expanding that base to reach a broader audience presents a significant challenge.

Final Thoughts

The future is close as one of the standout features on Farcaster is its seamless in-platform commerce, allowing instant checkouts for items like T-shirts and cookies without leaving the platform. This removes friction from the purchasing process in a way that one-click checkout services, which lack social feeds, could only aspire to. Additionally, this setup provides precise attribution that marketers find highly desirable.

Decentralized social (DeSoc) protocols can either use tokens for governance or remain decentralized without them, similar to ENS and Uniswap versus Linux and Android. The choice between these approaches for DeSoc protocols will be influenced by their ability to capture market share from Web2 social networks. If they struggle to gain traction, a token-based model might become inevitable. For example, Lens might consider launching its own chain and integrating a token in the future to enhance governance and incentivize participation.

Overall, DeSoc protocols and applications are still in the innovator's stage of the adoption curve. This means they are primarily being explored and adopted by early enthusiasts and pioneers rather than by the mainstream market.

Both Farcaster and Lens should focus on delivering unique product experiences rather than simply replicating existing networks. Offering innovative features that don't currently exist is much more compelling than creating a mere clone of established platforms. References

• https://www.varunsrinivasan.com/writing/

• https://docs.farcaster.xyz/learn/

• https://medium.com/@HashBrown_Research/reviewing-the-macro-of-2023s-toke nized-social-experiences-4579f8fab1d5

• https://mirror.xyz/0x678b508ae5918b5725A803949239eE3D1b9fC9a6/3Hcl0dG E8AOYmnFolzqO6hJuueDHdsaCs3ols2ruc9E

• https://www.lens.xyz/docs/resources/

• https://paragraph.xyz/@touchgrass/

• https://mirror.xyz/albiverse.eth/i0D_AovU22sXBTUO_ORw0bxgJQskboL5PkKRN hZCAW8

• https://thedefiant.io/news/defi/lens-layer-3-momoka

• https://www.notboring.co/p/framing-the-future-of-the-internet

• https://globalcoinresearch.com/2024/05/15/exploring-farcaster-frames-the-compo sable-social-platform/

• https://www.odaily.news/en/post/5190324

• https://moonrockcapital.medium.com/web3-social-lens-vs-farcaster-1cba354507d a