Impact

fc-updates

We’re planning to launch a new, optional “Pro” protocol subscription

1. At launch, subscribers will have a Pro badge on their profile

2. Subscription will be onchain and part of the protocol. 100% of the proceeds go to casters / developers in weekly rewards. This in addition to the existing $25K+ a week in rewards. 

3. Planning to add longer casts (10K characters) and up to 4 images per cast for pro subscribers (needs a protocol change). Additional features over time.

4. $120 a year / $10 a month 
Why are we doing this?

- The protocol needs to find long-term revenue source that can continue fund caster and developer rewards beyond any one company.  
- We originally thought storage fees could be that, but we’ve realized that storage fees should be essentialy free to help growth. 
- So we’re trying an opt-in pro subscription as another model

Why now?

- Figuring out a long-term revenue model that works will allow us to double down on investing in growth

This is perhaps one of Dan's most important casts re: farcaster in the past year.

It confirms my thesis that:
1) Merkle doesn't have a sustainable business model for FC in mind
and 
2) FC is squandering its competitive supremacy (having an open graph) by trying hard to be an X/twitter clone with a crypto wallet

The great thing about protocols (over centralized platforms) is that you can create a sustainable model where the interests of users ALIGN with the interests of the protocol (more on that here: https://paragraph.com/@abundance/time-to-put-the-user-in-the-center)

This is not that.

Merkle's current approach indicates that it will be using centralizing vectors (algos, subscriptions, etc.) to keep users "locked-in." 

A better approach would be favoring decentralization - where anyone can build their own client, app, and so on, and plug into a vast interoperable ecosystem powered by the open graph.

Solving public goods value capture. | /impact | book.abundance.id

The subscription will be part of the protocol, onchain and decentralized.

Subscriptions are meant to pay for engagement rewards on Warpcast, no?

But the engagement algo that determines how users are rewarded is not decentralized (or open sourced), nor is the eligibility criteria (spam labels & verification)

Its a centralization vector that locks users and devs in, and makes it harder for anyone else to build alternative clients, algos, and apps that don't follow Warpcast/FC client's highly opinionated choices

Rewards pay outs are separate from the features of the subscription.

> "The protocol needs to find long-term revenue source that can continue fund caster and developer rewards beyond any one company."

I have an app on Farcaster that rewards casters for impact (instead of engagement), so I'm directly competing with WC/FC rewards.

Will my app (as well as other clients, etc.) be able tap into these subscription fees in the future, since subscriptions are part of the protocol? How do you intend to decentralize the rewards?

Better question though is why copy a business model that works for web2 platforms (and incentivizes centralization), instead of having a web3-native model that can work in decentralized networks, aligns user-network interests, and takes advantage of FC's competitive advantage?