@jacek

If, in theory, you were looking at purchasing the Farcaster protocol, I think you have to frame it differently than “buy a company.” This is offhand, not deep diligence, but here’s my instinct: Protocols like Git and Linux are closer to public infrastructure than private assets. Their value comes from neutrality. The minute a single entity “owns” the rails, everyone building on them has to price in capture risk. That alone can destroy a big part of the network’s value. Farcaster, to me, is the Git layer. The real businesses are GitHub style businesses built on top: clients, distribution, UX, identity, payments, moderation layers, creator tooling, ads, subscriptions, etc. The protocol being open and credibly neutral is what makes the ecosystem compound. So my gut reaction is that buying the protocol outright is the wrong move, even if you could. It risks killing the thing you are trying to acquire. If you wanted to “secure” Farcaster long term, the better play is governance and stewardship, not ownership. I would move the protocol into a separate foundation or similarly neutral entity with clear guarantees: open development, public roadmap, transparent funding, and a strong walkaway test. Labs can still exist and build a flagship client and products, but the base layer stays credibly neutral. In that model you split responsibilities: - Foundation: protocol stewardship, standards, grants, safety research, interoperability, long term credibility. - Labs and others: build clients and businesses that compete and innovate on top. You also need a real protocol leader: someone with technical credibility and values aligned with “open social rails,” the way Vitalik or Linus function as anchors for their ecosystems. Not a “CEO of the protocol,” more like a steward people trust. If you get that right, you basically win by default over time. Closed networks can still be huge, but they tend to degrade as incentives skew toward extraction. Open rails with many builders tend to out-innovate closed stacks in the long run, because the surface area for experimentation is unlimited. On monetization: I would not expect the protocol itself to throw off massive cash flows, and that is fine. Protocols can be sustainably funded without turning into toll roads. The big economic upside is at the application layer. Where I think the real leverage is: - Great UX that makes Farcaster feel normal to non-crypto users. - A clear brand narrative around open social that people can repeat in one sentence. - Serious spam and abuse resistance. - Creator rewards that are transparent and legible, not casino-like incentives. - SocialFi innovation that feels like useful commerce, not speculation. Anyway, that is the shape of my view: do not buy the rails, make the rails neutral and unstoppable, then build the best trains. https://farcaster.xyz/commstark/0xcf945ecb

3 replies

2 recasts

25 reactions