How do we grow Farcaster? The current consensus is by creating more and better content. In this article, I would like to offer an alternative strategy: Make Farcaster the best place to hold conversations.
Why
We already agree that Farcaster is not be the best place to find the latest news (it's getting better, but we are in no way Twitter), but it's a great place to hold conversations.
Is it the culture? The friction imposed by the signup cost? The way clients work? The size of the network? I'm not sure, but it's a fact.
In any case, why not make it, Farcaster's unique selling point?
First of all, high quality conversations don't require a large network.
If you are interested in distrubution, you want to find the largest venue, ideally packed with people —when it comes to distribution and reach, size matters.
But if you want to have a good conversation, you pick a few, often a handful, of people —when it comes to engagement, quality matters more than size.
Second, the cost of using Farcaster (storage unit and signers costs) is better aligned with quality, than size —it's ok to add friction if you are more interested in audience quality than audience size.
Third, engagement and conversation drive daily, reoccurring usage. Every reply is a new invitation to respond or react, and the more time users spend on Farcaster, the higher the probability of sharing high-quality, original content.
How
If this is a strategy worth pursuing, we should review all features and touch points: Do they promote or facilitate conversations? Is there something we could add or change?
For example, can we improve how threads are presented in clients? Or maybe, is there an opportunity for a client that gives a better overview of long, nested threads and better tools to manage them?
How can we add more context to discussion threads? Would it add value if it was easy to see if the person who replied in a discussion about sports is a fan of team A or team B? Or in a political discussion if they are on the left or the right? Or in a crypto discussion if they are a BTC maxi, and ETH maxi, or chain agnostic? If yes, maybe we should introduce badges? Maybe badges that are channel-specific?
Or maybe we want better moderation tools per discussion. Would it make it a better place to hold discussions if I could moderate or token-gate or add some other type of control on who can respond? When they can respond, or how many times they can respond? Something else?
Should we look at FIP-2 again, through a different lens?
I'm sure that if we make conversation quality a top priority (even higher than better content), there will be many, and most probably, better ideas.
Final thoughts
Is focusing on engagement a better strategy than focusing on growth? I can't be sure, but it looks appealing to me.
While there may be a tension between network size and engagement quality, there is no tension between content quality and conversation quality. They are probably complementary.
Could it be a viable, long-term strategy? Again, I'm not sure. It definitely has its advantages at the stage we are right now, but maybe it will be less effective if the size of Farcaster grows 10x.
In any case, I think it's worth exploring the idea, even if it's only as a thought experiment.
This was a good read - I've written some other thoughts about it in a reply to @danicaswanson, who put this one on my radar - if you're interested, I'll link to that conversation in the comments. This quote by ithe essay's author ( @vrypan.eth ) stood out to me - “there is no tension between content quality and conversation quality. They are probably complementary.” I would go further and say that I believe a good conversation IS good content – but that raises one of my big and continuing concerns with WC – the obsession attempting to get “good content” without ever explicitly defining what that is. An example of this can be found in my comment on this Cast... What do you think of this essay? And of the proposition that good convo = good content? I look forward to reading your thoughts in the comments.
I shared some other thoughts about the @vrypan.eth 's hypothesis in this conversation - https://warpcast.com/ehcarpenter/0xdecfc6c5 - and here is an example of what I see as the big problem with the "good content" that gets so much press in this ecosystem. To frame this concern differently, imagine if I went into the Democratic Republic of the Congo and put all my energy into telling people that I wanted “good rocks” (when what I really wanted was cobalt ore.) I’m sure I’d be deluged with people bringing me rocks. Some of their offerings would even have cobalt. Many more would have other substances useful to other people – coal, copper, gold, etc. – but useless to me, a cobalt collector. The majority would be, well. Rocks. If I never clearly defined that a “good rock” (for me) was one that contained X% of cobalt, not only would I never get nearly as much cobalt as was available, I’d probably reduce the flow of other useful substances as well. Look forward to hearing what you think.
I would love something defined as well. I dont even want to waste my energy here with "content" some days because I do not want to pour my heart into something for it to sit unnoticed. Additionally I wonder if they realize creating content in the form they are seeking, is a full time job. Someone is NOT going to come over here for the possibility of 5 bucks-- Like if I knew I could afford to, I would make a lot more ballsy gambles here. But I need to pull my extremities in and keep things a bit closer to my chest these days (this is personally, the situation I am in-- I know not everyone would need the same as me) Your writing and takes, when they show up on my feed, are always something I needed to see or digest. So thanks for posting even as I am sure many of us didnt see it.
Torii, I'm glad my Casts resonate with you, and I know the feeling about the potential to waste time and words here. 50 $DEGEN and 500 $farther for sharing your thoughts! Thank you!
How do we grow Farcaster? The current consensus is by creating more and better content. In this article, I would like to offer an alternative strategy: Make Farcaster the best place to hold conversations. https://paragraph.xyz/@purplesubmarine/farcaster-as-a-better-place-for-conversations
I like it
Nice reading ! Definitely onto something there !
Here I think is the most precise key, many times we focus on covering too much when quantity is not always the best way, thank you for taking the time to share your experience with us!
Thank you
Looks good in writing but the reality is way different i must say. Some of the points i would address here. If users aren't getting engagement to their post how they supposed to grow? This notion of being a reply guy doesn't align with many people especially creatives. To prove this you can check the people who left the app in the last 3-4 months. One thing you will find in common, in all their post there's no engagement. Which affected their score that affected their allowance which eventually pushed them out. Keep in mind X is still king when it comes to web3. You can't expect them to be here 24/7 worrying about farscore, allowances. And these were artists, collectors who are native web3 users. When they do stuff things moves. So them leaving the app isn't a good sign. Same principle for farcaster as well. You want to retain quality users or you want to focus on quantity. You spoke about content. But we dont even get to share it. Check below. https://warpcast.com/framesbyvik.eth/0x17dcaf68
9 $degen Thanks for share
Great data
Hi what is this frame
I totally agree with you, quality is crucial factor then size matters
Minted