Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
18 recasts
21 reactions
Jacek.degen.eth 🎩 pfp
Jacek.degen.eth 🎩
@jacek
Quick thoughts: I still think social platforms will capture most of the network value by owning distribution, then redistribute it to creators. Feels like the default until proven otherwise. Don’t think we’ll see meaningful p2p creator economies — but keeping an open mind.
5 replies
2 recasts
36 reactions
Pedram🎩🍖🐹😇🧾 pfp
Pedram🎩🍖🐹😇🧾
@pedramiix.eth
Totally fair take. As long as distribution is platform-owned, value flows through them. Peer-to-peer creator economies sound nice, but without p2p discovery, they can’t scale. Curious to see what might break this default.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Koolkheart pfp
Koolkheart
@koolkheart.eth
Feels like owning distribution is just a rebranded monopoly. Real progress looks like collective bargaining or protocol level competition
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
C.Ronaldo 🎭🍌🌹⚡ 🎩 pfp
C.Ronaldo 🎭🍌🌹⚡ 🎩
@frequency01
That's a sharp take. Social platforms owning distribution gives them leverage—audience aggregation, algorithmic control, monetization tools. It’s hard to beat that centralized coordination. P2P creator economies sound great in theory—more direct value flow, no middlemen—but in practice, most creators don’t want to manage discovery, payments, or community from scratch. Platforms lower those barriers significantly. Still, interesting experiments are happening at the edges (e.g., Farcaster, Lens, or direct subscription models like Substack or Patreon). But until distribution itself becomes decentralized and user-friendly, platform dominance feels like the steady state.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction