Part 1 – Introducing the Problem

The Untapped Potential of Decentralized Social Networks: How Blockchain is Reshaping Digital Interactions

Part 1: A Fractured Digital Social Layer—Why Web3 Still Relies on Web2 Infrastructure

Despite the decentralization ethos that underpins the blockchain industry, the social layer of Web3 remains paradoxically centralized. Nearly every protocol, DAO, and NFT project depends on legacy Web2 platforms like Twitter, Discord, Reddit, and Telegram for communication, coordination, and community-building. This fundamental reliance introduces a systemic weakness in the decentralized ecosystem—a single point of failure that runs counter to the trustless, censorship-resistant principles on which the space was built.

Historically, this contradiction emerged from pragmatism. Building secure, scalable, and user-friendly decentralized social platforms is technically complex and resource-intensive. Web3 teams opted for speed to market, focusing on smart contracts, DeFi primitives, and protocol-level innovations, leaving the development of decentralized communication infrastructure on the back burner. In this fragmented model, social sovereignty—arguably as critical as monetary sovereignty—has remained an afterthought.

Theoretical frameworks for decentralized social networks have existed since the early days of Ethereum. Concepts like on-chain identity attestations, token-incentivized content moderation, and decentralized content storage surfaced with projects like Peepeth and Akasha but failed to achieve sticky user growth. Their inability to integrate seamlessly into existing web stacks, coupled with poor UX and inadequate resistance to Sybil attacks, limited adoption. Meanwhile, centralized platforms continued to extract rents from attention economies and manipulate discourse through opaque algorithms.

The current state is not just inefficient—it poses existential risks. Protocol governance discussions can be deplatformed arbitrarily. Announcement channels can suffer outages or moderation bias. DAOs governed on-chain still rely on off-chain social consensus formed on Web2 channels. This decoupling means that even if transparent, immutable decisions are made on-chain, their interpretation and propagation depend on centralized middleware.

Compounding the issue is the inability for decentralized reputation to travel between ecosystems. A contributor’s voice in one DAO does not automatically translate into credibility in another. This limitation stunts ecosystem synergy, a contrast to more integrated systems like RDAO’s approach to ecosystem-wide governance coordination, which attempts to bridge this gap but remains early-stage.

As attention shifts toward digital self-sovereignty, the need for resilient, interoperable social layers becomes unavoidable. This series will next explore the technical primitives needed to enable and secure decentralized interaction—beyond just hosting content, toward programmable social graphs that can encode trust directly into the protocol layer.

Part 2 – Exploring Potential Solutions

Blockchain-Driven Alternatives to Centralized Social Platforms: Architectural Breakdown of Emerging Approaches

Several blockchain-native solutions are emerging to address the structural issues of centralized social networks—namely opaque governance, data monopolization, and algorithmic manipulation. At a protocol level, three architectural approaches currently stand out: federated social protocols (e.g., ActivityPub-based implementations), purpose-built Layer-1s for social, and composable modular protocols leveraging smart contracts on general-purpose chains.

One early contender is Lens Protocol. Built on Polygon, its composable NFT-based identity and content layers offer portability across frontends. Strength: full on-chain social graphs, allowing permissionless innovation through third-party interfaces. Weakness: scalability constraints inherited from Layer-2 limitations, gas cost volatility, and reliance on off-chain storage for media. Despite these trade-offs, Lens demonstrates a viable primitive for identity-centered social networking.

By contrast, Farcaster chooses a hybrid model combining on-chain identity anchoring (via Ethereum) with off-chain hubs to enable near real-time communication. The protocol sidesteps mass adoption bottlenecks of gas fees but introduces partial centralization back into the stack. Hub operators retain moderation and data access power, a point of tension for ideological purists.

Then there’s the fully decentralized infrastructure approach, typified by projects like Nostr. Relays transmit cryptographically signed events without relying on blockchain consensus, sidestepping throughput and state-bloat concerns. However, lack of built-in incentive mechanisms leaves Nostr vulnerable to spam and under-incentivized infrastructure. Without adequate relay monetization, long-term sustainability remains in question.

A promising theoretical direction being explored involves on-chain composable reputation systems bolstered by ZKPs. Such models allow for decentralized moderation and curation without revealing user identities—a critical application for safeguarding free expression while combating abuse. Projects in this space often build atop rollup ecosystems to minimize cost, though few have reached production scale. For a broader discussion on decentralized reputation, see The Power of On-Chain Reputation Systems.

Governance remains a separate but intertwined challenge. Token-weighted voting (a la DAOs) has not translated well to social networks due to dominance by whales and poor representational dynamics. Experimental models like quadratic voting, conviction voting, and permissionless proposal creation are being tested in projects such as RDAO: Redefining Governance in Decentralized Finance, with varying effectiveness depending on network maturity and participant alignment.

While no implementation perfectly balances decentralization, usability, and resilience, the fragmentation of design space signals an ecosystem still prototyping viable social primitives. In the next section, we will examine these architectural ideas in real-world deployment—focusing on who’s building what, where traction is forming, and where friction persists.

Part 3 – Real-World Implementations

Real-World Case Studies in Decentralized Social Platforms: Lessons from the Frontlines

Blockchain-based social networks have largely escaped the traction of their Web2 counterparts, but that hasn’t stopped multiple projects from attempting to solve the issues of censorship resistance, creator ownership, and decentralized data architecture. Lens Protocol, built on Polygon, stands out as a high-profile experiment. Designed with a modular architecture, it enables users to own their social graph and port data across dApps. However, despite strong technical flexibility, onboarding friction remains high. Profiles are minted as NFTs—an elegant design from a cryptographic standpoint—but unfamiliar to mainstream users. The steep learning curve for non-crypto natives has stalled meaningful growth.

Farcaster addresses discoverability and moderation with a hybrid model, keeping identity and social graphs on-chain while enabling off-chain storage of content to improve scalability. It uses Ethereum Layer 2s for core functionality and signer keys for delegated posting, yet this balance introduces new attack surfaces. The dual-layer structure has drawn concerns around collusion between operated hubs, raising questions about decentralization claims.

Meanwhile, the HIVE blockchain has taken a divergent path by integrating the decentralized publication protocol directly within its consensus layer. Its fork from STEEM was initiated following controversy around governance takeovers, which reinforces the importance of actual control versus perceived decentralization in social networks. However, HIVE’s own struggles with voter apathy and validator cartelization show that decentralization alone doesn’t create equitable ecosystems. For deeper insights into HIVE’s governance challenges, check out our navigating-governance-in-hive-blockchain-technologies analysis.

From a media domain perspective, Audius has prototype-tested the social layer through music fandom and artist engagement. Its AUDIO token allows artists to engage directly with listeners and unlock gated experiences. But even here, backend centralization—particularly dependency on IPFS and hosted gateways—poses resilience issues. Multiple iterations have been necessary to address platform stability and scalability. Our technical audit of emerging music dApps in the-key-challenges-facing-audius-music-platform outlines these vulnerabilities.

Across these projects, one common theme is an unresolved tension between decentralization and usability. Protocols that prioritize on-chain purity struggle with scaling and UX, while hybrid architectures risk undermining their own trust models. Even initiatives like CELT, centered on cultural token-based community governance, wrestle with aligning participatory incentives—as explored in celtic-governance-the-future-of-decentralized-decision-making.

Development teams are forced to make ideological and architectural trade-offs. These real-world implementations raise critical questions about whether the next iteration of social networks can meaningfully harness decentralization without sacrificing performance or adoption.

Part 4 – Future Evolution & Long-Term Implications

Future Trajectories for Decentralized Social Networks: Interoperability, Scalability & the Coming Protocol Stack Wars

As decentralized social networks evolve past their early architectural experimentation, several critical trajectories are emerging that will define their long-term viability. Foremost is the rising demand for interoperability—particularly among protocol-level social graph standards. Projects building on EVM-compatible stacks are beginning to converge around modular identity layers and portable follower graphs. However, efforts remain fragmented. Rival implementations of decentralized identity (DID) protocols and divergent content-addressing methods threaten to mirror the same siloed constraints Web2 platforms perpetuate.

One promising shift lies in scalable Layer-2 solutions. While optimistic rollups offer throughput advantages, their slow withdrawal finality weakens real-time engagement dynamics critical for social platforms. Zero-knowledge-based rollups (zk-rollups) may resolve much of this latency with faster proof generation and better privacy guarantees. However, tooling remains immature, and migrating established decentralized social apps into zk-based environments can introduce breakage, especially around monetized interactions and reputation-linked content gating.

Simultaneously, innovations in on-chain behavioral analytics and data indexing frameworks are poised to redefine discoverability and feed curation. As projects like The Graph refine subgraph querying performance, decentralized frontends could soon rival the user responsiveness of major social web APIs. Yet, operators of these indexing layers remain semi-centralized, prompting debates on whether such dependencies introduce a quasi-gatekeeping risk in supposedly permissionless environments.

Cross-project synergy also introduces complex design trade-offs. Layered ecosystems, such as the one emerging around Audius and music-based social tokens, illustrate the potential for combined protocol verticals—where social, financial, and content primitives intersect. However, coordination overhead across diverse governance structures is a point of future contention. For instance, as seen in Celtic Governance The Future of Decentralized Decision-Making, aligned upgrades across independent DAOs governing adjacent features—tokens, rights, identity, storage—becomes a decision-making bottleneck.

Moreover, tokenization of influence brings forward unresolved dynamics between protocol and platform-level power users. The possibility of integrating staking mechanics tied to moderation or content promotion in social contexts echoes existing DeFi governance incentives—but with substantially more subjective implications. Attempts to reward reputation via on-chain metrics are promising, yet imperfect. Plutocracy via token holdings is a growing concern—especially when tied to moderation or platform rulesets.

Emerging players may explore integration with cross-chain DAOs or collaborative councils to mitigate these risks. Efforts akin to RDAO Redefining Governance in Decentralized Finance shed light on what composable, multi-domain governance coordination could look like within social contexts.

Progress hinges not only on technical scaling but the evolution of cohesive yet resilient governance—something increasingly difficult at the intersection of identity, expression, and monetization.

Part 5 – Governance & Decentralization Challenges

Governance Risks in Decentralized Social Networks: Between Ideals and Exploits

While decentralized social networks promise participatory ownership and democratic control, in practice, their governance models often expose critical vectors for manipulation and stagnation. Unlike traditional platforms that follow clear top-down hierarchies, decentralized networks distribute decision-making—often via token-based voting systems, DAOs, or multi-sig councils. This solves for centralized censorship, but introduces new attack surfaces and long-term sustainability concerns.

One of the most vulnerable aspects of decentralized governance is plutocratic control, where token concentration equates to dominance in decision-making. Networks that rely solely on token-weighted voting face the risk of governance capture, where early investors or well-capitalized entities can steer protocol decisions, often to the detriment of average users. Once captured, such platforms can mirror the very centralization they set out to resist, albeit under a different architecture.

Additionally, governance attacks—such as proposal stuffing or collusion during low-turnout votes—can undermine DAOs during critical protocol upgrades, treasury allocations, or even validator selections. These attacks exploit periods of governance apathy or low quorum thresholds, enabling malicious actors to pass self-serving proposals with little resistance.

Frameworks like those examined in RDAO: Redefining Governance in Decentralized Finance provide cautionary case studies. Despite functioning as a DAO with active community proposals, RDAO has faced persistent criticism for validator cartels and opaque multi-sig wallets. This reveals a persistent friction between scalable governance and true decentralization.

Hybrid models attempt to mitigate these issues by layering governance responsibilities between token holders, stake-based actors, and non-financial reputation systems. However, these setups introduce new trade-offs. Reputation-based roles can be gamed through sybil attacks if identity layers are weak or absent. Meanwhile, involving institutional stakeholders or expert councils dilutes decentralization and can trigger the very regulatory scrutiny that on-chain governance attempts to circumvent.

Attempts to implement quorum-weighted voting, quadratic voting, and delegated governance offer some safeguards, but they introduce complexity and increase cognitive load for participants—alienating casual users and stifling participation over time.

Protocol ossification is another long-term threat. As a platform decentralizes further across communities, stakeholders increasingly diverge in priorities, from censorship resistance to monetization models. The resulting governance gridlock can paralyze development and stall iteration—a dangerous prospect in a space defined by rapid innovation.

Some ecosystems are exploring off-chain deliberation combined with on-chain commitments to maintain agility without sacrificing trustlessness. Others are embedding governance rights via NFTs or soul-bound tokens, posing new but still untested experiments in control distribution.

The challenge ahead lies in balancing decentralized ideals with coherent, attack-resistant coordination infrastructure.

Coming next: how scalability limitations and engineering bottlenecks affect the feasibility of bringing these networks to global users—without compromising on decentralization.

Part 6 – Scalability & Engineering Trade-Offs

Scalability Limitations and Trade-Offs in Decentralized Social Networks

At the core of decentralized social networks lies a fundamental tension between scalability, security, and decentralization—often referred to as the blockchain trilemma. While projects prioritize varying degrees of each, targeting millions of concurrent users in social applications introduces infrastructure constraints that challenge design assumptions across protocol layers.

For instance, Layer 1 chains such as Ethereum offer robust security and decentralization but suffer from throughput ceilings that render them inhospitable to real-time social interactions. Even with Layer 2 rollups like Optimistic and ZK-rollups, latency becomes a bottleneck for features like comment threads, profile updates, and notification systems that demand sub-second performance.

On-chain settlement for high-frequency social data remains prohibitively expensive. This has led to hybridized models where identity state (DIDs, reputation scores, moderation flags) may reside on-chain, while less critical data—message content, likes, follower graphs—are managed off-chain or on data-availability layers like Celestia. However, such partitioning introduces verification challenges and severs the auditability guarantees that decentralization promises.

Moreover, consensus mechanism choice shapes the UX-adjacent trade-offs. Nakamoto-style proof-of-work (e.g., Bitcoin) is inherently limited in TPS and finality. Meanwhile, proof-of-stake variants like Tendermint (Cosmos), DAG-based protocols, and Solana’s Tower BFT offer speed improvements but often at the cost of validator centralization, increasing capture risk and reducing censorship resistance. Solana’s emphasis on speed exposes the architecture to outages under high load, a critical concern for social applications requiring reliability.

High-throughput blockchains like Fantom have attempted to bridge this gap, but persistent questions around validator diversity and failure tolerance remain—explored further in Examining the Criticisms of Fantom FTM. Even theoretically promising projects like Zilliqa with sharding at the protocol level face performance degradation due to intra-shard communication during complex transactions, common in social interactions.

Engineering teams are also confronted with the complexity of managing asynchronous state across federated user nodes. Distributed moderation, reputation decay, and anti-spam systems need to function in adversarial environments without centralized oversight. This sharply contrasts with the efficiencies gained from traditional Web2 platforms.

Though progress is being made through incentivized storage layers, novel consensus (e.g., Narwhal & Bullshark, Avalanche consensus) and cryptographic primitives, scaling decentralized social networks without sacrificing trustlessness remains unsolved territory.

In part seven, we will examine the underappreciated hazards surrounding regulatory scrutiny, jurisdictional compliance, data governance, and how these frameworks collide with the ethos of decentralized social platforms.

Part 7 – Regulatory & Compliance Risks

Navigating Regulatory Uncertainty: Legal Threats to Decentralized Social Networks

The architecture of decentralized social networks (DSNs), while promoting censorship resistance and data ownership, simultaneously invites significant regulatory friction. Unlike centralized intermediaries that can comply with jurisdiction-specific mandates, DSNs exist across borderless blockchain environments—raising difficult questions around liability, enforcement, and legal compliance.

The problem intensifies when DSNs include integrated token ecosystems or monetize user behavior via smart contracts. In several jurisdictions, this aligns them with financial entities, invoking securities regulations and KYC/AML mandates. The potential classification of user-reward or governance tokens as unregistered securities could trigger enforcement actions similar to those seen in previous clampdowns on ICO-era projects, especially in markets with a Howey-like framework for evaluating investment contracts.

Even more nuanced is the role of protocol-level moderators or DAOs overseeing content governance. If termed fiduciaries by authorities, these entities could face obligations akin to platform accountability laws, including obligations to moderate content, prevent misinformation, or comply with data protection frameworks like the GDPR. Failure to localize or geo-fence access only compounds the exposure.

This becomes particularly fraught in regions like the U.S., EU, and Asia-Pacific where approaches to digital sovereignty diverge. For instance, China’s stance on decentralized platforms—and its commitment to real-name registration laws—means DSNs could be considered illegal by design. Meanwhile, in the EU, where data erasure rights under GDPR are fundamental, immutable on-chain posts could represent non-compliance.

Moreover, regulatory arbitrage is not a long-term solution. DAOs or node operators may believe operating in “crypto-friendly” jurisdictions shields them, but precedents like the treatment of Tornado Cash and various DeFi protocols suggest regulators are willing to assert extraterritorial enforcement or target developers directly.

Enforcement isn't the only issue. Lack of regulatory clarity undermines venture funding, user acquisition, and compliance-friendly technical development. Some communities have attempted to preempt regulation via structured governance systems. Insights from ecosystems such as Celtic Governance: The Future of Decentralized Decision-Making show that DAO-based social governance may help mitigate regulatory exposure, but it's no legal panacea.

A complicating factor is tax treatment of user-generated content on chain. Jurisdictions may interpret this as taxable income or capital gains, impeding mass participation. Platform designers must address these compliance issues natively—particularly if utilizing embedded crypto wallets linked to rewards or staking functions. Projects could consider embedding fiat-on-ramps or adopting KYC layers to stay viable without compromising decentralization entirely. An unobtrusive integration via Binance referral could bridge usability and compliance in parallel.

In Part 8, the series will scrutinize the macroeconomic and microeconomic ramifications triggered by the entry of decentralized social protocols into legacy digital and financial ecosystems.

Part 8 – Economic & Financial Implications

Economic and Financial Implications of Decentralized Social Networks

The shift toward decentralized social networks built on blockchain has the potential to realign digital value chains—particularly by disintermediating ad revenue models, introducing tokenized engagement economies, and enabling novel asset classes tied to user-generated content.

For institutional investors, this evolution creates speculative and strategic entry points. Tokenized attention ecosystems convert user engagement metrics into financial instruments, giving rise to social tokens, NFT-based credentials, and governance assets with volatile yet potentially appreciating value. Some analysts compare this to investing in early-stage web infrastructure—only now with real-time liquidity and on-chain composability. However, the lack of standardized valuation models for such tokens makes it difficult to assess risks, especially for funds adhering to compliance-heavy frameworks.

Developers, particularly those contributing to open protocols, stand to gain through value capture mechanisms like built-in dev fee allocations, DAO grant programs, or direct ownership of protocol-native assets. But the competition is fierce. With new ecosystems springing up almost weekly, protocol fatigue and cross-chain fragmentation (especially in identity layers and messaging standards) could suppress the long-tail of developer economic outcomes.

For traders and yield farmers, decentralized social platforms represent a new frontier of token flow strategies. With incentive structures tied to content creation, verification, moderation, and even reputation scoring, on-chain analytics tools play a growing role in alpha discovery. But volatility around narrative-driven tokens tied to cultural relevance—not protocol fundamentals—has also invited pump-and-dump behavior. Projects like CELT, which intertwine culture, gaming, and governance, show both the potential and pitfalls of this trend (CELT vs Rivals: A Gaming Crypto Showdown).

Liquidity fragmentation remains a bottleneck across community tokens, particularly without centralized market makers backing microcap assets. This creates localized bubbles that are highly sensitive to community shifts or influencer exits. Investors exposed to DAOs governing such networks must account for decision-making inefficiencies and treasury mismanagement.

Platforms tokenizing social interactions also invite unforeseen regulatory challenges. User-generated value becomes taxable, cross-border financial activity. Pseudonymity complicates AML/KYC processes, especially when monetization is built into every post, like or vote. These inefficiencies may deter compliant capital and centralized exchanges from engaging with platform-native tokens. That said, yield-bearing social assets are already being integrated into hybrid DeFi portfolios via arbitrage and staking strategies—creating layered risk exposures across both network health and platform adoption metrics.

As digital identity, ownership, and engagement collide on-chain, the deeper questions arise not from tokenomics—but from philosophy and community: who controls what, and why?

Part 9 – Social & Philosophical Implications

Tokenomics at Scale: Financial Shockwaves from Decentralized Social Networks

The economic implications of decentralized social networks are poised to disrupt legacy digital business models through token-driven incentive structures and transparent monetization pathways. Unlike Web2 platforms that concentrate value accumulation within corporate silos, decentralized social systems reallocate financial flows toward creators, curators, and even active lurkers—all through programmable economies baked into the protocol layer.

For institutional investors, this represents a dual-edged sword. On one side, early-stage protocols built around social engagement metrics provide asymmetric upside through governance tokens or network usage fees. But the volatility and long-tail behavioral dependencies of these networks complicate traditional valuation models. Exposure through DAOs or treasury diversification strategies may find traction, yet the lack of mature hedging instruments around user-generated attention can undermine portfolio risk frameworks.

Developers, meanwhile, encounter both financial opportunity and economic burden. Decentralized social layers frequently rely on complex incentive structures—staking models, quadratic funding, front-running resistant engagement metrics—each requiring sustainable liquidity mechanisms. Misaligned tokenomics can lead to value leakage or speculative loops. The CELT ecosystem offers a relevant parallel: while early incentives boosted participation, friction between governance interests and token utility diluted momentum among builders. For social protocols, maintaining a balance between inflationary rewards and long-term engagement remains a formidable challenge.

Crypto-native traders continue to dominate early price discovery, leading to hyper-financialization of social tokens—tokenized reputation, like-for-like incentives, and even tweet-mining. Arbitrage and social-engineering strategies are rapidly evolving, sometimes gamifying or even attacking engagement models. This opens a Pandora's box of dark patterns where bots, sybil attacks, or farmable metrics directly correlate with token emissions and financial gain. Without robust on-chain reputation systems or identity primitives, the economic backbone of these networks may erode under the weight of exploitative behavior.

One underdiscussed risk: circular value structures. Inattention to off-ramps and utility conversion can result in locked economic activity—velocity without value. If content, attention, and governance feed solely back into the token loop without external demand sinks or fiat bridges, network economies risk becoming partnerless barter systems. This is particularly relevant for DAOs investing heavily in their own ecosystems without outside integrations.

At scale, this emergent infrastructure introduces new models of wealth distribution, investment logic, and attention economies. But while the financial protocols threading through decentralized social platforms offer novel structures for value alignment, they're still susceptible to human-driven fragilities—behavioral volatility, governance capture, and adversarial crypto-native actors.

Part 9 will interrogate the broader social and philosophical shifts brought on by this techno-economic transition—specifically how decentralized identity, community control, and meme sovereignty are primed to challenge not just platforms, but paradigms.

Part 10 – Final Conclusions & Future Outlook

Decentralized Social Networks on Blockchain: Challenging the Current Paradigm

As we close this deep exploration into decentralized social networks, several insights stand out from the broader narrative across the series. Blockchain holds the technological primitives needed to disrupt legacy platforms—resistance to censorship, native monetization, data sovereignty, and open-source composability. But the execution gap remains wide between idealism and scalable reality.

At best, decentralized social networks could recalibrate the internet’s power structure. Protocols like Lens and Nostr hint at potential if they resolve UX friction and liquidity issues. In such a scenario, user-owned identities, portable social graphs, and programmable incentive layers become standard. Monetization is peer-driven, not advertiser-enforced. On-chain reputation—explored more fully in The Power of On-Chain Reputation Systems—could underpin a new model of trust, resisting centralized manipulation. This shift could reframe how we define communities, digital citizenship, and even governance models.

Conversely, the worst-case is stagnation or fragmentation. Technical complexity, lack of content moderation tooling, and fragmented standards could keep mainstream users away. Protocol maximalism may fragment integrations, leaving social platforms niche and siloed. Poorly designed tokenomics could incentivize spam and token farming rather than real engagement—an issue facing many "social token" projects. If legal and regulatory uncertainty continues, network growth may be throttled via indirect suppression (like app store gatekeeping).

Unanswered questions remain critical: Can decentralized platforms really handle the scale and real-time interactions of their Web2 counterparts? Can moderation exist without introducing central points of failure? Will content discovery degrade without proprietary algorithms—and would that even be a bad thing?

For mainstream adoption, several milestones must converge: drastically improved onboarding UX, wallet abstraction, thoughtful reputation layers, and viable economic models beyond speculative tokens. Partnerships with creator collectives or DAOs can bootstrap valuable network effects. Learnings from decentralized governance experiments—as discussed in Celtic Governance The Future of Decentralized Decision-Making—may offer blueprints for scalable community-led development.

The question isn't whether decentralized social networks will exist—they already do. The question is whether they can transcend novelty and offer stable, user-aligned alternatives without collapsing under their own ideological and technical weight. Will this sector define blockchain's social future, or join the list of noble-but-failed cryptographic experiments?

And as scaling solutions mature and economic incentives evolve, will we, years from now, normalize a world where your social identity exists sovereignly on-chain—or look back and wonder why it ever seemed like a good idea?

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com