When we talk about decentralized social, we usually refer to a class of products or protocols that have decentralized characteristics and are related to social media. When we discuss how to build such products, we often consider how to use decentralized technologies or even blockchain to create them, and how to bring the benefits of decentralization and blockchain to social users.

While this perspective is not wrong, it resembles Maslow’s hammer: “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Decentralization is that hammer, and social applications appear to be the nails.

Let’s think it another way. Instead of thinking about what kind of social applications decentralization can bring, we should ask: if we have a decentralized social network, what products can we build based on this network? Thanks to Farcaster, we already have such a network, although it is still small. I would classify all products or protocols built on decentralized social networks as decentralized social, even if the product itself is centralized or not a typical social application.

To answer “what can be created based on decentralized social networks,” we first need to answer: when we have a decentralized social network, what do we have? At least, we have decentralized data, decentralized relationships, decentralized identity, and we can undertake decentralized development and construction. This article will explore the possibilities of decentralized social from these perspectives.

Decentralized data often reminds us of data ownership and privacy, which might be achieved in the future. At this stage, decentralized data merely means that the data created by users no longer belongs to centralized companies (which is already revolutionary). However, this data doesn't belong to the users either; it is a commons that everyone collectively owns and can use. Three types of products will emerge first on this data commons.

First type: information services and media services. These refer to how data/content is re-presented to users. For instance, client based on different feed algorithms. As @liang mentioned, “The feed algorithm should be a protocol. Good opportunity for builders.” I completely agree. Additionally, information search and processing services combined with AI, such as some existing products on Farcaster, fall into this category. On a smaller scale, channels with the main feed strictly controlled by hosts are essentially media services.

Second type: products and product marketing based on user profiles. These involve analyzing data to create user profiles and providing users with products based on those profiles. The most familiar products in this category are advertisements, which are the commercial core of Web 2.0. However, in decentralized social networking, advertisements are merely one type of product. Thanks to embeddable frames and programmable feeds, social feeds are no longer just streams of information, but also streams of products, or even, as @raulonastool mentioned, “feed-as-an-interface.” With products appearing directly in front of users without needing advertisements for redirection, and data being open rather than closed, these two changes will usher in a new era for products and product marketing based on user profiles.

Third type: content incentivization. This involves pricing data/content and bringing economic returns to data producers. There are multiple design approaches for such products. For instance, tipping (Degen and Build); bounty platforms (Bounties and Rounds); cast trading (Jam); channel incentives (far_terminal),… This category of products might solve the content incentivization issues that have long plagued Web 2.0, but we also need to be wary of problems arising from excessive financialization.

Just like our data, our social relationships have shifted from closed to open, from private to shared. Based on decentralized social relationships and decentralized social graphs, four types of products may emerge:

First type: products presenting social graphs. In the Web 2.0 era, products precede social graphs, making it difficult for users to switch to other similar products once they establish social relationships. However, decentralized social networks make it possible to build products on existing social graphs. These products present social graphs in various ways to meet users’ different needs for social spaces. For example, a product that presents each node in the graph equally creates a space closer to a “plaza”; a product that organizes content around the user's own node creates a space more like a “tiny corner” and “warrens”. Designing social spaces is akin to architectural design in the offline world. As we spend more time online, the design of these spaces will become increasingly important and diverse in demand. (In “The Evaporative Cooling Effect”, @bumblebeelabs analyzes the basic patterns of social spaces, suggesting that “plaza” and “warrens” are the two fundamental patterns).

Second type: utilizing social relationships for brand development. @v pointed out a fact that many people may not realize: “Centralized social networks closely control their users’ ability to reach their audience. But reliably reaching an audience is valuable to users.” This control hinders users from leveraging their social relationships to develop their brands. Decentralized social networks change this situation, turning users’ social relationships into their social capital. Utilizing social relationships to develop personal brands may become common practice. There will also be products to help users achieve brand development, such as Hypersub. Each subscription product on Hypersub represents a brand, which could be an information service, digital work, or even a physical product. For instance, I’ve seen @samantha working on a candle brand.

Third type: products based on social graphs. The most anticipated products in this category are social network games, which were once extremely popular. Social network games bring offline social relationships online, attracting many new users to social networks. New opportunities for social network games include open social graphs, decentralized development, and the financial attributes or investment/speculative nature brought by blockchain.

Fourth type: products using social graph data. Social graph data can help users and companies find target audiences, establish connections, and expand their social and other relationship networks. There will be a need for professional products to assist in this process. For instance, I tried a frame on Farcaster to find new friends and successfully connected with some recommended users. Besides, social graph data can also be used to create user profiles; it is the most valuable type of data created by users, a veritable gold mine.

Decentralized identity represents the user’s digital self and the proof of their digital identity. It defines the user and determines their permissions and entitlements in the network space. There may be three types of products related to decentralized identity:

First type: products related to establishing decentralized identity. These can range from large reputation systems like Talent to smaller badge products like Power Badge. Second type: incentive systems related to decentralized identity. An example is Moxie, which aims to implement economic incentives at the protocol level. Third type: products related to the use of decentralized identity. Such as making identities available for social gating, for sybil detection, and for online and even offline verification related to entitlements.

Blockchain plays a crucial role in the development of identity and incentive products. It establishes ownership, enables the tokenization of content and social capital within the social network, and provides a permissionless, trustless marketplace.

When we have a decentralized social network, we gain decentralized data, relationships, and identities. We can come together in a decentralized, autonomous manner and engage in composable development and construction based on this network. This is not about combining blockchain with social, nor is it about deriving Web3 from Web1.0 and Web2.0; it’s about growing an entirely new ecosystem on an entirely new foundation.

People often ask, “Why hasn’t Web3 social taken off yet?” I believe the main reason is that this decentralized social network is not large enough yet, and the network effects haven’t even begun to take place. Unlike the isolated and competitive social applications of the Web 2.0, any product that succeeds on a decentralized social network will expand the network, and this expansion will benefit all products based on the network, making them more likely to succeed. Therefore, although it is challenging to rebuild social relationships, if we maintain an open, co-constructive attitude and focus on growing the network rather than exploiting it, every product and every construction can push the network forward a little bit. The aha moment will come sooner or later.

as it originally appeared on t2：

https://app.t2.world/article/clye7lkwn36464922mcyolmbi0q

When we talk about decentralized social, we usually refer to a class of products or protocols that have decentralized characteristics and are related to social media. When we discuss how to build such products, we often consider how to use decentralized technologies or even blockchain to create them, and how to bring the benefits of decentralization and blockchain to social users.

While this perspective is not wrong, it resembles Maslow’s hammer: “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Decentralization is that hammer, and social applications appear to be the nails.

Let’s think it another way. Instead of thinking about what kind of social applications decentralization can bring, we should ask: if we have a decentralized social network, what products can we build based on this network? Thanks to Farcaster, we already have such a network, although it is still small. I would classify all products or protocols built on decentralized social networks as decentralized social, even if the product itself is centralized or not a typical social application.

To answer “what can be created based on decentralized social networks,” we first need to answer: when we have a decentralized social network, what do we have? At least, we have decentralized data, decentralized relationships, decentralized identity, and we can undertake decentralized development and construction. This article will explore the possibilities of decentralized social from these perspectives.

Decentralized data often reminds us of data ownership and privacy, which might be achieved in the future. At this stage, decentralized data merely means that the data created by users no longer belongs to centralized companies (which is already revolutionary). However, this data doesn't belong to the users either; it is a commons that everyone collectively owns and can use. Three types of products will emerge first on this data commons.

First type: information services and media services. These refer to how data/content is re-presented to users. For instance, client based on different feed algorithms. As @liang mentioned, “The feed algorithm should be a protocol. Good opportunity for builders.” I completely agree. Additionally, information search and processing services combined with AI, such as some existing products on Farcaster, fall into this category. On a smaller scale, channels with the main feed strictly controlled by hosts are essentially media services.

Second type: products and product marketing based on user profiles. These involve analyzing data to create user profiles and providing users with products based on those profiles. The most familiar products in this category are advertisements, which are the commercial core of Web 2.0. However, in decentralized social networking, advertisements are merely one type of product. Thanks to embeddable frames and programmable feeds, social feeds are no longer just streams of information, but also streams of products, or even, as @raulonastool mentioned, “feed-as-an-interface.” With products appearing directly in front of users without needing advertisements for redirection, and data being open rather than closed, these two changes will usher in a new era for products and product marketing based on user profiles.

Third type: content incentivization. This involves pricing data/content and bringing economic returns to data producers. There are multiple design approaches for such products. For instance, tipping (Degen and Build); bounty platforms (Bounties and Rounds); cast trading (Jam); channel incentives (far_terminal),… This category of products might solve the content incentivization issues that have long plagued Web 2.0, but we also need to be wary of problems arising from excessive financialization.

Just like our data, our social relationships have shifted from closed to open, from private to shared. Based on decentralized social relationships and decentralized social graphs, four types of products may emerge:

First type: products presenting social graphs. In the Web 2.0 era, products precede social graphs, making it difficult for users to switch to other similar products once they establish social relationships. However, decentralized social networks make it possible to build products on existing social graphs. These products present social graphs in various ways to meet users’ different needs for social spaces. For example, a product that presents each node in the graph equally creates a space closer to a “plaza”; a product that organizes content around the user's own node creates a space more like a “tiny corner” and “warrens”. Designing social spaces is akin to architectural design in the offline world. As we spend more time online, the design of these spaces will become increasingly important and diverse in demand. (In “The Evaporative Cooling Effect”, @bumblebeelabs analyzes the basic patterns of social spaces, suggesting that “plaza” and “warrens” are the two fundamental patterns).

Second type: utilizing social relationships for brand development. @v pointed out a fact that many people may not realize: “Centralized social networks closely control their users’ ability to reach their audience. But reliably reaching an audience is valuable to users.” This control hinders users from leveraging their social relationships to develop their brands. Decentralized social networks change this situation, turning users’ social relationships into their social capital. Utilizing social relationships to develop personal brands may become common practice. There will also be products to help users achieve brand development, such as Hypersub. Each subscription product on Hypersub represents a brand, which could be an information service, digital work, or even a physical product. For instance, I’ve seen @samantha working on a candle brand.

Third type: products based on social graphs. The most anticipated products in this category are social network games, which were once extremely popular. Social network games bring offline social relationships online, attracting many new users to social networks. New opportunities for social network games include open social graphs, decentralized development, and the financial attributes or investment/speculative nature brought by blockchain.

Fourth type: products using social graph data. Social graph data can help users and companies find target audiences, establish connections, and expand their social and other relationship networks. There will be a need for professional products to assist in this process. For instance, I tried a frame on Farcaster to find new friends and successfully connected with some recommended users. Besides, social graph data can also be used to create user profiles; it is the most valuable type of data created by users, a veritable gold mine.

Decentralized identity represents the user’s digital self and the proof of their digital identity. It defines the user and determines their permissions and entitlements in the network space. There may be three types of products related to decentralized identity:

First type: products related to establishing decentralized identity. These can range from large reputation systems like Talent to smaller badge products like Power Badge. Second type: incentive systems related to decentralized identity. An example is Moxie, which aims to implement economic incentives at the protocol level. Third type: products related to the use of decentralized identity. Such as making identities available for social gating, for sybil detection, and for online and even offline verification related to entitlements.

Blockchain plays a crucial role in the development of identity and incentive products. It establishes ownership, enables the tokenization of content and social capital within the social network, and provides a permissionless, trustless marketplace.

When we have a decentralized social network, we gain decentralized data, relationships, and identities. We can come together in a decentralized, autonomous manner and engage in composable development and construction based on this network. This is not about combining blockchain with social, nor is it about deriving Web3 from Web1.0 and Web2.0; it’s about growing an entirely new ecosystem on an entirely new foundation.

People often ask, “Why hasn’t Web3 social taken off yet?” I believe the main reason is that this decentralized social network is not large enough yet, and the network effects haven’t even begun to take place. Unlike the isolated and competitive social applications of the Web 2.0, any product that succeeds on a decentralized social network will expand the network, and this expansion will benefit all products based on the network, making them more likely to succeed. Therefore, although it is challenging to rebuild social relationships, if we maintain an open, co-constructive attitude and focus on growing the network rather than exploiting it, every product and every construction can push the network forward a little bit. The aha moment will come sooner or later.

as it originally appeared on t2：

https://app.t2.world/article/clye7lkwn36464922mcyolmbi0q