Farcaster

Why should a decentralized social chain support token transfers or have a VM?

Snapchain’s approach makes more sense to me — focus purely on app-specific needs and delegate all other business logic (registry, token transfers, etc.) to another network

Specialization -> performance

Big milestone for @GHO on Lens. $1M GHO has been bridged organically to the new chain.

$GHO brings predictability, stability, and a better user experience to builders and users on Lens. https://t.co/jqWpFTR2Fx

Lens Chain

Why should a decentralized social chain support token transfers or have a VM?

Snapchain’s approach makes more sense to me — focus purely on app-specific needs and delegate all other business logic (registry, token transfers, etc.) to another network

Specialization -> performance

https://x.com/lc/status/1912830807208567293?s=46

friendly neighborhood shitcaster / building @pinetree

well they are specifically philosophically opinionated about everything being onchain right? and farcaster is opinionated in the opposite direction re sufficient decentralization

I’d disagree w their philosophy but I think the architecture makes sense when considered as downstream of that

oh yea sure. but that then just becomes the generalized convo about why everyone is launching their own chains? not unique to lens / social

everything can be onchain without being on(your)chain?