Technical Foundations, Application Pitfalls, and Future Evolution of Decentralized Social Networking
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Technical Foundations, Application Pitfalls, and Future Evolution of Decentralized Social Networking
This article will analyze the technological evolution and structural pitfalls of decentralized social protocols by deconstructing the product architecture of Social Fi, and predict future trends in Social Fi.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthors: Shaun, Yakihonne; Evan, Waterdrip Capital
The concept of decentralized social protocols (hereinafter referred to as Social Fi) is no longer novel, yet products in this sector have continuously undergone real iterations.
At the beginning of the year, Kaito made "attention" quantifiable and transferable for the first time, incentivizing C-end users and subsequently serving Web3 project operations. More recently, FOMO—a hit application in Western crypto circles—bound real on-chain transaction behaviors with social relationships, allowing users to clearly observe the connection between smart money's on-chain activities and their social accounts, triggering strong emotional resonance and a pronounced "FOMO" effect.
However, behind the constant emergence of innovative applications at the application layer, the true ceiling of the industry remains determined by three core dimensions of decentralized social protocols at the foundational product structure level: identity systems, data storage, and search & recommendation mechanisms. Against this backdrop, this article will dissect the product architecture of Social Fi, analyze the technological evolution and structural pitfalls of decentralized social protocols, and forecast future trends in Social Fi.
Technology Maturity: Three Core Dimensions of Decentralized Social Protocols
Whether it's Web2 centralized social networks or Web3 decentralized social protocols, their underlying structures are built around three key dimensions:
-
Identity System (Account / ID)
-
Data Storage (Storage)
-
Search & Discovery Mechanism (Search & Recommendation)
These three dimensions determine the degree of decentralization of a protocol and shape its long-term evolutionary trajectory. The industry has already made significant breakthroughs in identity systems and data storage layers, but search and recommendation mechanisms remain in early stages—this is the critical variable that will determine the explosive potential of future social protocols.
1. Identity System (Account / ID)
Different protocols adopt different technical approaches for identity systems:
-
Nostr uses a cryptographic structure with local storage, independent of any client or server, achieving a fully decentralized account system. Although early user experience was poor, improvements such as username binding have since been implemented.
-
Farcaster adopts on-chain DID (decentralized identity), while relying on specific Hubs for data storage.
-
Mastodon / ActivityPub’s account system relies on domains and is tied to specific servers; if a server goes down, the associated accounts become invalid.
These designs reveal varying degrees of decentralization across protocols regarding whether accounts are independent from clients/servers and support cross-client login.
2. Data Storage (Storage)
Web2 data storage relies entirely on centralized servers, whereas decentralized social protocols typically use distributed nodes or Relay networks.
Farcaster achieves efficient storage through a limited number of (approximately one hundred) Data Hubs, distinguishing between on-chain and off-chain data.
Mastodon operates on independent servers, open in nature but lacking interoperability across servers.
Nostr allows anyone to deploy Relays, enabling data synchronization across Relays. Even if some Relays go offline, content remains discoverable.
Key evaluation metrics include: data storage location, discoverability after node failure, and data tampering verification mechanisms.
Currently, Nostr effectively mitigates loading and redundancy issues in distributed storage via an online/offline model. YakiHonne is also the first client to introduce an offline publishing model, allowing users to post content under weak network conditions and automatically sync later.
3. Search & Recommendation (Search & Recommendation)
Search and recommendation algorithms represent the most difficult yet crucial challenge.
Early versions of Nostr suffered from poor search experiences due to reliance solely on public key systems, though this has improved via username mapping.
Bluesky (AT Protocol) employs partially centralized algorithmic recommendations to enhance user experience.
Nostr is currently attempting to build decentralized search and recommendation mechanisms at the Relay layer.
Thus, the algorithm layer remains the biggest challenge for decentralized social today. Once resolved, it will mark the field's entry into a period of mass-scale breakout.
Overall, current decentralized social protocols have solved approximately 2.5 out of the three core dimensions: identity systems are now fully decentralized and increasingly user-friendly; distributed storage mechanisms are mature and effectively address loading and search experience; recommendation algorithms remain in the exploratory phase and represent the next key breakthrough point. For example, Kaito’s Yaps mechanism uses AI algorithms to quantify and reward high-quality crypto-related content posted by users on social platforms, measuring “attention” and influence within the crypto community rather than simple likes or impressions. From a technological evolution perspective, this will be the tipping point determining whether decentralized social networks can achieve widespread adoption.
Traps Encountered During the Emergence of Social Fi Applications
Since the birth of the Social Fi concept, numerous products have emerged, including representative projects like Lens Protocol, Farcaster, and Friend Tech. However, most applications inevitably fall into certain structural traps during development, quickly exhausting initial user enthusiasm and failing to sustain engagement. This explains why many Social Fi projects often appear briefly and fail to maintain long-term growth.
Feature Replication Trap: Many Social Fi projects directly copy Web2 social modules such as short posts, long-form articles, videos, and communities. This does not provide sufficient motivation for migration nor creates differentiated content value.
Lack of Niche Power Users Trap: The success of early-stage social protocols often hinges on attracting a group of strong niche users. Take Nostr as an example: although a niche protocol, it benefits from the powerful cultural drive of the Bitcoin community. Just one client, yaki, surpasses Farcaster’s Warpcast in activity. Therefore, Social Fi products lacking cultural foundation or clear use cases typically have short lifecycles.
Misuse of Token Incentives Trap: Many projects mistakenly believe "token incentives" can replace product logic. For instance, some early viral Web3 social apps were merely short-lived phenomena—due to lack of specific user ecosystems and sustained use cases, they quickly disappeared. Similarly, when projects stack DID, Passport, various Web2 features, plus token issuance and Payment modules, they may appear "comprehensive," but actually fall into a complex and unsustainable trap, as each individual module represents a deeply specialized vertical application.
Application Forms Will Continue to Be Restructured: We are currently in a transitional phase of "protocol maturity → application restructuring." Future social application forms will not simply extend Web2 models but will generate entirely new interaction structures. In five years, application-layer forms will be completely different from today’s.
Once core issues at the underlying protocol layer are fully resolved, upper-layer applications will inevitably emerge in entirely new forms, not as mere extensions of existing social models.
Resource- and Narrative-Driven Trap: Social protocols hold specific strategic/political positions within the broader industry. Whether a constructed social protocol has backing from powerful forces is also important. Nostr and Bluesky, despite not issuing tokens, are both supported by strong resources or factions. Resources and narratives are often unavoidable barriers in Social Fi.
Future Directions: The Next Evolution of Social Fi
Most social tokens fail to establish long-term value primarily due to lack of real transaction logic and user retention drivers. Compared to traditional Social Fi incentive models, two more promising future directions exist:
1. Social Users Driven by Payment Needs (Social Client as a Payment Gateway)
Social clients naturally possess identity binding, relationship graphs, and message streams, making them ideal entry points for cross-border payments, micro-settlements, and content monetization scenarios.
2. Social Users Driven by Trading Needs (Social Client as a DeFi Gateway)
Social networks are inherently linked to asset behavior. When social graphs integrate with on-chain asset flows, they may form a new generation of "socially-driven on-chain financial behavior gateways." The rise of Fomo—linking social behavior with trading activity—is actually an early manifestation of direction 2.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
Waterdrip Capital
