Content
@
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Lior
@lior
I've been thinking a lot about the financial case to invest in social applications on top of open social graphs, when the app has no "moat" over the users. Are you struggling to justify an investment in your social app? This frame is for you 🤝 Would love to get the hive mind on this! https://shorturl.at/eiEL9 -->
9 replies
5 recasts
88 reactions
Lior
@lior
The case is trying to show how the overall value currently created on web2 social networks and is mainly captured by the top 5 platforms, will be distributed differently between Protocols (like Farcaster and Lens), Users, and applications builders. What is the claim?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Lior
@lior
The claim is that because the underlying social graph is open, market forces will drive a more fair distribution of value, and competition (and fragmentation) between apps. Is it bad for app developers ? -->
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Lior
@lior
I don't think so. In the number crunching part of the Frame, I show that even if there are 1000 of popular social apps (vs. 5-10 today), there's is still room to create a multi-million $ worth of apps just by distributing the current value in social
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Lior
@lior
This is before introducing new value drivers (financial transactions and new monetization flows) In conclusion --->
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
knostalgia
@knyck
I’m interested in learning more about how the top apps are generating revenues and what innovative value drivers are being experimented with and seeing defensibility.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Lior
@lior
I think some of the most obvious now are minting protocol fees (referal fees that protocols like Mirror, Zora, Paragraph share. applications like Interface & Warpcast already generate cash flow from user on chain actions today. I wrote about it here: https://shorturl.at/bdFRU
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
knostalgia
@knyck
Awesome, I’ll give it a read, thanks for your help!
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
