soapbox VS protocol

We have already have a clear stack. there's Gitcoin Passport for sybil resistance, git (and wrappers like Radicle) for version control, Lit PKPs & Gelato for account abstraction, Farcaster/Orbis/Lens for social architecture, OpenStreetMaps for geographic markets, OPStack, etc.

These services exist outside of the protocol and depend on a few centralized and trusted authorities.

Another solution that is arguably more resistant to capture and censorship would be to use a blockchain to manage user name aliases - like Farcaster is doing with fnames.[1]

[1] https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol#22-farcaster-names

one XMPP server gets big and usernames get squatted and dealt with at the discretion of the server admin.

Only solution is something like how Farcaster does it

https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol#3-identity

That's sad to hear, but it makes total sense to shut down the server given its sensitive data, rather than hand it off to another person.

Mastodon/ActivityPub is a poor fit for a social network IMHO.

- Accounts should not be tied a single server and their continued maintenance.

- Private data and DMs should be end-to-end encrypted rather than entrusted with a single administrator.

- People don't want to self-host.

The core problem of a lot of social networks comes down to name aliasing, and who controls the name registry. In the case of nostr[1] this is not a problem because everything is using public keys. Another protocol is Farcaster[2] which plans to use a smart contract to maintain a name registry without requiring a single controller.

[1] https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr

[2] https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol