I complain a lot about Farcaster, while I tend to have praise for Base.

Yet Farcaster is clearly valuable. While Base is mostly valueless as a network (op stack, single sequencer...). Their moat lies in their network effects, which Farcaster is a big driver of too.

I'm starting to think we might see social for blockchain as an evidence in a couple of years. i.e. if you want to launch your blockchain infra stack, you should have some fashion of social network on it.

Blockchains being about consensus, even if decentralized, makes it logical to have a central hub to talk.

And then the embedded wallet experience is too important to leave it to some hope a third party will build it.

EVM. ETHFinance. Home Staker. Believer in decentralisation.

Got it. But yeah, if you use commoditized tech there of course can't be a product moat. In the end down the road L1s and L2s will have to pick a niche. Sometimes this might be tech, sometimes this might be marketing/ brand/ distribution, sometimes this might be regional (which likely comes down to distribution, but potentially also regulation) etc. and I think that's okay.

Oh you're right, I was really talking to myself too deep here. I was thinking of "moat" in terms of an useful product by my arbitrary terms. Within that frame I consider the financial part of crypto mostly useless. It's all about getting people doing actual nonspeculative things onchain.

Isn’t the biggest moat years of user acquisition which now means distribution is easy and cheap? Not sure a lot of CB users are even active on farcaster.