The: Daniel ⚡️ on Nostr: Yesterday I accidentally stumbled onto a link for a “decentralized social ...
Yesterday I accidentally stumbled onto a link for a “decentralized social network” called DeSo (get it?) that apparently raised $200 million from Sequoia, a16z, and Coinbase last year. They (of course) did a token launch and snagged another $75 million from the crowdsale, which is now down 97% from the launch and 85% in just the last year.
I checked it out, and there is literally nothing happening on it. Seems like only a few people post on it per day. You have to set up a wallet before you can even sign in, which is apparently how every blockchain-based social app operates.
People post bad NFTs and complain about spam. Once and a while, the founder checks in to share an update and a few users mock him because there’s absolutely no network effect whatsoever.
What did they do with all the money?
I checked it out, and there is literally nothing happening on it. Seems like only a few people post on it per day. You have to set up a wallet before you can even sign in, which is apparently how every blockchain-based social app operates.
People post bad NFTs and complain about spam. Once and a while, the founder checks in to share an update and a few users mock him because there’s absolutely no network effect whatsoever.
What did they do with all the money?
quoting nevent1q…mejpFor some reason I cannot respond in thread to your comment about Farcaster. I’ve never used it but from what I can tell it’s nowhere near decentralized (AI assisted summary):
1. Wallet-bound identity:
Farcaster ties your account to your Ethereum wallet, exposing it to blockchain fees, governance risk, and potential censorship. Lose your wallet, lose your identity. (Vs infinite lightning wallets separate from keypair)
2. Centralized data hosting:
User data lives on Hubs, which are hard to self-host. Most people rely on a few trusted operators — a real chokepoint. (Nostr shares this problem with relays in practice right now, but spinning up a relay is a weekend project vs. a hub seeming a lot more technical)
3. Pay-to-play identity leasing:
Joining requires a fee or invite, and usernames must be renewed annually. It’s a rent-based system, not true ownership. (Yikes?)
4. Core-team-controlled governance:
Protocol changes come from a small internal team. There’s no open standard process like Nostr’s NIPs — even if messy, Nostr is at least public and forkable.
5. Feature creep increases centralization risk:
Frames and other “smart” features rely on external servers, making the protocol more powerful — but also more fragile and dependent.