Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0xLuo
@0xluo.eth
This article is sparking heated discussions in the Chinese community today. It critiques the limitations of Web3 Social and monetization strategies. worth a read. The article differentiates between social interaction (micro-level communication) and community (a complex entity with shared goals and mutual support). It argues that Web3 Social monetization models, like X to Earn, often fail because they shift user motivation from the product to incentives, leading to diminished engagement when incentives wane. Instead, it recommends focusing on building vibrant community products or exploring innovative middleware for better integration with existing social platforms. Farcaster is cited as a successful example, avoiding the SocialFi model and fostering a genuine crypto community that naturally led to memecoins like Degen. While this model was popular, communities can be fragile during downturns. This serves as a test, and when the market recovers, focusing on crypto communities may still be more stable.
1 reply
1 recast
11 reactions
Juli 🎩↑
@juli
Thanks for sharing 420 $degen It’s always been fascinating to hear/see crypto users from all over the world connect over tokens, sometimes contribute while being in a completely different sub community with different culture. At times, the communities try to connect better and then the different local communities drift apart again. This reminded me of my time at NEM: strong communities in SEA, Japan, Australia, some in Europe and smaller ones in china, south and North America formed, all got their own budgets and had different growth approaches which led to quite some clashes, good & bad collabs and “varied” outcomes. After all, some community/foundation people went to other crypto projects & others just disappeared but prob a few are here on farcaster too now 😄
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
0xLuo
@0xluo.eth
Yes, there are token-based crypto communities around the world, but most of them have drifted apart over time because tokens can't keep rising indefinitely. Introducing external revenue is essential for sustaining communities in the long run. The same applies to social products based on crypto communities.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Juli 🎩↑
@juli
Up only definitely helps forming communities and down only tests communities. Revenues & fair compensation are a good input and necessary for most projects. It was cool to see though that people with diff languages become super contributors and the Japanese community was very tight, had even NEM-branded coffee shops and NEM-branded toys years after ATHs. Same applies to Polkadot (or cosmos): There was unpaid volunteers and they’ve been working and engaging in governance for years aside high-paid founders, employees and ecosystem teams without the price looking good and with tons of negativity that they withstand (for example little comms from Polkadot foundation with ambassadors who kept working for no personal gain) So, sometimes there’s more than prices, for example belonging in a subgroup can be a strong force too. That said, I don’t think projects grew that sustainably in the last years and user-investors have become less ideologic, more profit-driven and less attached to projects.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
