On-Chain Follow/Subscribe Models vs Federated Follow Models

On-Chain Follow/Subscribe Models (e.g., Farcaster, Lens Protocol) excel at user sovereignty and verifiable ownership because the social graph is stored as public, immutable state on a blockchain. For example, a user's Farcaster ID and their follower list are non-custodial assets, enabling seamless protocol switching and composability with DeFi and NFT ecosystems. This model provides cryptographically secure provenance, but at the cost of on-chain transaction fees and the scalability limits of its underlying L2, such as Optimism's ~2,000 TPS for Farcaster.

Federated Follow Models (e.g., Mastodon, Bluesky's AT Protocol) take a different approach by decentralizing through server federation. This strategy results in superior horizontal scalability—individual instances handle their own user data—and eliminates gas fees for social actions. However, the trade-off is fragmentation: user discovery and interoperability depend on server rules and protocol standards (ActivityPub vs. ATProto), creating a less unified experience and potential for data silos within the network.

The key trade-off: If your priority is provable data ownership, censorship resistance, and deep composability with on-chain apps, choose an On-Chain Model. If you prioritize high-volume, low-cost posting, and organizational control over data and moderation policies, a Federated Model is the superior choice. The decision hinges on whether you value the blockchain's trust guarantees or the web-scale architecture of federation.

On-Chain Follow Models (e.g., Farcaster, Lens Protocol) excel at permissionless composability and user ownership because the social graph is a public, verifiable asset on a blockchain. For example, Farcaster's on-chain 'Fnames' and 'Storage Units' enable seamless integration with DeFi protocols and NFT marketplaces, creating a vibrant ecosystem where a user's follower base can be directly leveraged by third-party apps without gatekeepers. This model thrives on networks like Base and Polygon, where transaction fees are often below $0.01, making micro-interactions economically viable.

Federated Follow Models (e.g., Mastodon, Bluesky's AT Protocol) take a different approach by decoupling data storage from consensus, using a network of independent servers (instances). This results in a trade-off: it achieves superior scalability and cost-efficiency for pure social posting—handling thousands of interactions per second with near-zero marginal cost—but introduces fragmentation and governance complexity. User discovery and cross-instance communication rely on protocols like ActivityPub, which can lead to inconsistent experiences and moderation challenges across the federation.

The key architectural divergence is between a global state layer and a protocol of federated states. On-chain models provide a single source of truth (e.g., an Ethereum L2), enabling powerful global applications but inheriting the underlying chain's throughput limits (~50-100 TPS on optimistic rollups). Federated models avoid this bottleneck entirely but must solve state reconciliation, a challenge evident in the slow rollout of features like quote-posts across the ActivityPub ecosystem.

Consider an On-Chain Social Graph if your priority is: - Monetization & Composability: Building apps that require direct financialization (e.g., social trading, creator subscriptions with split revenues). - Censorship Resistance & Credible Neutrality: Needing absolute assurance that core graph rules cannot be changed by a corporate entity. - Data Portability as a Guarantee: Where user ownership is a non-negotiable product feature.

Choose a Federated Model when you prioritize: - Scale & Cost at the Core: Your primary use case is high-volume, low-cost text/media posting (e.g., a Twitter alternative). - Independent Governance: You need control over server rules, data residency, and moderation policies for your user segment. - Early-Stage Experimentation: You want to iterate on social features without the immediate burden of gas economics or blockchain alignment.

Final Decision Framework: Map your requirements. For web3-native products demanding interoperability (e.g., a DAO tool that uses follower graphs for governance), the on-chain tax is justified. For mass-market social apps where cost and familiarity are paramount, the federated approach offers a proven, scalable path. The future may see hybrid models, but today the choice is between optimizing for ecosystem power (on-chain) or operational scale (federated).