Farcaster:去中心化社交的未来还是泡沫?

Odaily星球日报2024-05-23 tarihinde yayınlandı2024-05-23 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Farcaster目前展现出的预期价值能撑得起1B的VC估价。

原文作者:Haotian

如何看待 Paradigm 领投去中心化社交协议 @farcaster_xyz  ?相信不少人会有疑问: 1) 10 亿美元估值 A 轮贵吗? 2)它和 Nostr 以及 Lens 等社交协议区别在哪? 3)它背后的技术架构原理大致是什么? 4)它会给 Social 板块带来哪些契机?接下来,简单谈谈我的理解:

1)尽管最近不少高 FDV 低流通的代币饱受争议,有一种声音称是 VC 助长了此类“上线即巅峰”的吸血鬼项目存在。暂不评价其他项目,就以 Farcaster 而言, 10 亿美元估值 A 轮融 1.5 亿美元,贵吗?我认为不贵。

因为 Farcster 不只是一个局限在web3领域的协议,有着冲向Web2解决社交平台隐私保护和数据所有权,尤其是广告信息泛滥问题的潜质。站在web2估值体系的视角来看,一点都不贵。那些高 FDV 但现实却很惨淡的项目大部分是由于既定预期和已实现价值反差太大所致。在我看来,Farcaster 目前展现出的预期价值能撑得起 1 B 的 VC 估价。

2)Farcaster 和大家熟悉的 Nostr、Lens 等是三个不同的去中心化社交网络协议。个人通过观察和分析研究认为,Farcaster 更容易落地且能捕获更广泛的市场价值。

Nostr 是一个极简的P2P消息传递系统,更加偏技术上游通信架构层设计,面向未来颠覆性价值很大,但缺乏强应用市场驱动因此还在概念阶段徘徊;

Lens 更强调用户数据的所有权和互操作性,和区块链当前框架有更深的绑定,但过于依赖 Tokenomics 激励预期,导致其应用生态发展比较缓慢;

Farcaster 则采用了一个去中心化身份层(链上),一个可互操作的应用层(链下),抛开协议层的消息存储租用和通信激励不谈,仅首个 Warpcast 客户端已经累计了近 40 万用户,增长潜力可见一斑。

Nostr 曾经让不少开发者先痴迷后落入无奈,Lens 则因 Tokenomics 迟迟不落地而饱受争议。相比之下,Farcaster 协议混合链上和链下环境,有着更好的社交 Alpha 平台基本面,无论是早期用户的体验口碑还是$DEGEN 等社区资产的出圈,都让人有种“价值满满”的增长预期。

3)Farcaster 的技术运作架构,简单理解,构建在 OP Stack 上,由链上协议(ID)和链下协议(存储+通信+客户端)两大部分构成:

链上部分主要进行用户身份的创建、管理和储存,目的为账户在链上生成与其以太坊地址链接的密钥对,便于用户后期转移客户端之后的数据匹配和检索;

链下部分分为后端信息存储系统和前端用户交互系统:

后端相当于 Nostr 的 Relay 信息存储和转发运作系统,由很多 Hubs 节点来存储用户的数据并在节点网络之间分发传递;

前端则由一些类似 Warpcast 的客户端来运营,借助 Frams 可交互应用程序的创新,以及付费注册和 Channel 创建订阅等运行机制已实现良性增长,目标给用户提供比肩web2社交平台一样的交互体验。

应该讲,Farcaster 的整体技术架构框架并不复杂,博采众长,不仅采纳了 Nostr 的后端通信去中心化架构精髓,还采用了 Warps 积分系统来规避纯 Token 激励的增长持续性问题。特别是,Frams 类似小程序的前端交互体验创新特别契合web3用户群体的偏好,且支付端天然和web3钱包环境打通,更容易 onboard 有付费习惯的高质量用户群体。

整体来说,Farcaster 表现出来的增长预期和潜力会加速去中心化社交协议生态的落地,我个人非常看好。

以上

我觉得 Farcaster 不应该被归类为 SocialFI,用 DeSoc 可能会更契合。

短期看,Farcaster 并不会被放到聚光灯下太过火爆,因为它的注册门槛和付费使用体验会阻挡大部分普通用户流入,但长期视角看,这反倒会避免其陷入 SocialFI 的短期爆火而后衰的怪圈,真正吸引到有社交真实需求且在意数据隐私、数据所有权的可长期留存用户,值得持续锁定并关注它的发展。

原文链接

İlgili Okumalar

The Full Story of How Crypto Unicorn Blockstream Is Mired in Serious Fraud Allegations

This article details serious allegations of fraud against Bitcoin infrastructure company Blockstream, founded by Bitcoin pioneer Adam Back. In June 2024, investigative account NatInfoSec published a report accusing Blockstream's mining note (BMN) program of potentially operating a multi-billion dollar scheme with Ponzi-like characteristics. The core allegations focus on Blockstream Mining Notes (BMNs), which offer investors fixed annual yields up to approximately 20% from Bitcoin mining. NatInfoSec's investigation raises several key issues: 1. **Suspicious Hashrate & Payout Capacity**: The analysis suggests Blockstream would need 20-45 EH/s of mining power to cover its BMN obligations, but its public dashboard shows only around 15 EH/s. Furthermore, no verifiable public evidence (e.g., grid connection records, import data) was found to support the massive mining operation required. 2. **Questionable Payout Source**: The BMN contract allows Blockstream to use Bitcoin from *any source* (Substitute Performance BTC) to fulfill investor payouts, raising concerns that payouts may not come from actual mining revenue. 3. **High-Risk, Fixed Returns**: Offering ~20% fixed yields in the volatile, cyclical Bitcoin mining industry is viewed as highly unusual and requires clear explanation. 4. **Undisclosed Criminal Record of Key Figure**: Christopher William Cook, a key figure in Blockstream's mining operations and CEO of spin-off Exacore, was found to have a federal felony conviction for mail fraud in 2008, a fact not disclosed in BMN offering documents. His background was also allegedly embellished. 5. **Potential Contagion to BSTR SPAC**: Questions were raised about whether these liabilities and Cook's record should have been disclosed in the SEC filings for Bitcoin Standard Treasury Company (BSTR), a separate Adam Back-associated firm planning a SPAC merger. The crypto community is divided. BitMEX Research validated Cook's criminal record and expressed concern over the high yields but found other evidence lacking or misleading, noting the legal separation between BMN, Blockstream, and BSTR. Blockstream defenders, like Samson Mow, argue the mining is real. Critics, however, emphasize the lack of independent, verifiable proof of the mining operation's scale and the true source of investor payouts. The article concludes that BMN remains shrouded in key unanswered questions regarding its actual size, the verifiability of its underlying mining assets and payouts, the source of its high yields, and the full role and disclosure concerning Chris Cook. Blockstream had not issued a comprehensive response at the time of writing.

marsbit1 saat önce

The Full Story of How Crypto Unicorn Blockstream Is Mired in Serious Fraud Allegations

marsbit1 saat önce

The Full Story Behind Encryption Unicorn Blockstream's Deep Entanglement in Serious Fraud Allegations

This article details allegations of serious fraud surrounding the crypto company Blockstream, founded by Bitcoin pioneer Adam Back. Investigation account NatInfoSec accuses Blockstream of raising billions through its Blockstream Mining Note (BMN) products, which offer high fixed yields of up to 20% from purported mining revenue. The core allegations are: 1) Blockstream's public mining hash rate (15 EH/s) appears insufficient to cover the massive payout obligations from sold BMN notes, raising questions about the true source of investor payouts. 2) Key executive Christopher William Cook, central to the mining operations, has a prior federal conviction for mail fraud, a fact not disclosed to investors. Cook's background and lavish lifestyle are highlighted as red flags. 3) The structure allows payouts from any source of BTC, not necessarily mining revenue, which critics argue gives it Ponzi-like characteristics. The controversy also touches on Bitcoin Standard Treasury Company (BSTR), a related entity planning a SPAC上市. Critics question whether BMN's liabilities and Cook's record should be disclosed in BSTR's filings. BitMEX Research offered a tempered analysis, confirming Cook's criminal record is likely true and the high yields concerning, but found other claims like insufficient抵押证据 less substantiated. Community debate centers on the need for verifiable proof of Blockstream's mining output and revenue. The article concludes that while fraud is not proven, BMN presents significant, unresolved questions regarding its actual scale, the source of its high fixed returns, the verifiability of its mining operations and payouts, and the full disclosure of associated risks and personnel backgrounds. Blockstream has not yet issued a formal response.

链捕手2 saat önce

The Full Story Behind Encryption Unicorn Blockstream's Deep Entanglement in Serious Fraud Allegations

链捕手2 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片