0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
3 replies
2 recasts
21 reactions
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
Thank you so much for your response, I’ll listen to it tonight. I’m definitely not an expert, quite the opposite actually, I know nothing about all this.
But it does raise some questions for me: if a Web3-native platform like Farcaster, built on Base, isn’t able to attract the biggest protocol project on Base like Virtual, isn’t that a real problem ?
What I find a bit unfortunate is that Farcaster is betting on smart, interesting builders… and from what I see, it’s exactly the same on Virtual’s side, right?
Maybe I’m wrong, like I said, I’m no expert. But if you have any thoughts on this, I’d love to hear them 1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
First, Farcaster isn’t built on Base, the registration data is actually on OP. Meanwhile, miniapps now support multiple major chains including ETH, Base, OP, Arbitrum, and newer additions like Monad and Celo.
That said, Farcaster is often associated with Base, likely because of their close relationship, and many Base devs are active here.
Still, many projects on Base continue to focus solely on Twitter, skipping Farcaster. The likely reason is what Wee Kee pointed out: fewer users mean lower traffic, and the ROI of building or operating here doesn’t seem high.
From this angle, if Farcaster had more users and higher DAU, it might attract more devs. But the opposite is also true: only when more devs build here will more users come. That’s what Farcaster is trying to do, onboard more chains, attract more devs, and showcase what can happen when Farcaster social graph + Warplet + miniapps.
But someone has to benefit first to prove the value. It’s still early, and it takes time. 1 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
