The Write3 Newsletter

I sit at the intersection of writing & web3.  A space I call Write3.  Each week, I deliver 1 tip for writers, 1 Write3 opportunity & 1 literary NFT worth collecting. 

A quick bit of news.  I've done some reflecting, and I feel a few tweaks are needed to make the newsletter even better for you, my reader. The changes are as follows:

1 Tip for Writers" will become "1 Write3 Tip"

 - Starting today, my tips will revolve around how to become a better Write3 creator.  While I feel I'm a strong writer, there's plenty of better resources to learn the art of writing.  My specialty is showing you how to navigate Write3 (NFT books, decentralized media, etc), and I plan to give you actionable advice so you can become a more successful Write3 author.

"Write3 Opportunity" will become "Write3 News" 

- When I started the Write3 Newsletter, I thought I could source opportunities (contests, jobs, write-a-thons, etc) for creators.  Unfortunately, those chances are few and far between.  Meanwhile, I come across dozens of new projects and interesting movements in the web3 space.  This newsletter is a great place to share interesting news from around Write3.  

My goal is to to provide you with as much value as possible.  Let me know what you think.  Respond to this email and give me your feedback, which is 

 appreciated! Finally, a quick thank you to my good friend 

, who helped me find clarity around this issue.  Check out his newsletter and give him a follow!

1. Write3 Tip - How To Find A Lens Profile

One of the most exciting platforms for creators and writers is the 

.  Lens is an open-source & composable social graph based on web3 and built on the Polygon blockchain.  I've been using the platform for a few months and I'm seeing lots of creatives find success on the platform.

👉🏻 The easiest way to gain access is to pick up a Lens profile off the 

👉🏻 If that's too expensive, follow the 

 and look for ways to make connections.  Lens profiles are given to creators that are deemed to be a positive addition to the platform.

CoinTelegraph recently began offering blog posts as NFTs.  This is an exciting development in the Write3 space!  I spoke with

, he shared that CoinTelegraph wanted to give their audience a chance to collect important stories from the day.  They also wanted to highlight quality journalism.  Take a look 

, founder of UFO Club.  They are doing really cool things with podcasts, NFTs and Mirror.  I highly recommend checking out their work and paying attention to how Nick is using web3 content creation to capture value for his company. There are plenty of UFO Club NFTs worth collecting, but I really enjoyed the 

 takes place tonight, 6pm (cst).  The class is only available to collectors of my latest Mirror essay: 

7 Twitter Algorithm Hacks to Build Your Web3 Following and Sell More of Your Work

At the time of this writing, there was one edition available on the secondary market, pick up your copy 

For more Write3 content, be sure to check out the 

Interested in sponsoring the Write3 Newsletter?  Email me at 

Plus, Cointelegraph jumps into the Literary NFT game

3 For Write3: Time For A Change

teleyinex.eth

I've been a user of both decentralized solutions for a few months now, and I wanted to compare them to understand how each solution has been built and what are the main differences and similarities between the two.

 client), and obviously the web2 Twitter solution. So far, I found the most insightful content in Farcaster, while Lens has a unique experience focused on creators. Finally, I have to keep an eye on my Twitter account as most of the projects keep their information there (basically because to join Lens or Farcaster, you need an invite).

Before jumping into the comparison, I wanted to create a "short" guide about each protocol. Then at the end, I will compare them and see if there's a winner, which I think is not because each of them has its cool features.

Farcaster is built on top of the L1 blockchain Ethereum. The L1 manages the user identities, while the protocol uses an L2 network to propagate updates between its users (Farcaster Hubs). The protocol then offers the following features:

1.  Secure, memorable, and human-readable user identifiers like 

2.  Real-time settlement and propagation of changes between users.

3.  Decentralized access to all data on the network at reasonable costs.

: as pointed out by some members of the CrisisDAO the delta-graph nodes are not an L2, as it does not use a blockchain to settle on its state. Thus, the protocol uses an off-chain peer-to-peer network to sync the data.

To join the Farcaster protocol, you must register a public-private key pair and an ID with an Ethereum  contract. This public-private key-pair (a new Ethereum address) will be used for signing messages plus the ID (a canonical reference for a user on the Ethereum network), so they are made tamper-proof and self-authenticating. Moreover, recipients can check the key pair associated with the ID in the contract and verify the message's authenticity.

Signed messages are uploaded to the Farcaster Hub, which works like a blockchain network. The Hubs use a peer-to-peer protocol to share messages between them and store them, using delta 

 to reach a consensus about their state. The most interesting aspect of using delta graphs is that Hubs can reach a consensus without coordination.

With Hubs storing and managing the network status, the client apps will connect to them so companies and people can build different clients for the protocol, customizing the experience for their users. This is fantastic because each app could be completely different based on the protocol, allowing the creation of an ecosystem of apps within the Farcaster protocol.

Farcaster IDs and the Ethereum address (the public-private key pair) are managed within the Farcaster Ethereum contracts, so we can be sure that the ownership of the identities is decentralized and secure.

From the official documentation of Farcaster:

 is the canonical identifier for a user or organization. Fids are numerical values like !8098, distinguished from other numbers by prefixing them with an exclamation mark. Users register fids to an Ethereum address, also known as the 

. Users can transfer fids to a new custody address, though each address can own exactly one fid at a time."

.  As this is a smart contract on Ethereum, anyone can read the contract to find out which Ethereum address owns a given 

At this point, we have all the necessary parts to send messages to the protocol:

With those two pieces, we can sign a message and send it to the hub, and the recipient can also verify everything. Moreover, the protocol does not allow anyone to reclaim or revoke a 

 once an address claims it, we have "sufficient decentralization" by allowing tamper-proof communications over the Hubs.

While we have the required items to send messages, we need a human-readable way of referencing the 

. For this reason, Farcaster has an optional 

 are alpha-numeric strings like @john or @alice, distinguished from other text by prefixing it with an at-symbol (

 is that all of them must adhere to the following regular expression:  

 have to be renewed once a year, paying a fee to the 

 can be renewed 90 days before it expires. If it expires, 

 enter a dutch auction where the price is set to a yearly fee plus a premium, which decays until it reaches zero.

The protocol's core team sets the price for these NFTs. This fee controls who can join, getting bots out of the protocol while keeping a reasonable price to get the community valuable.

As we already know, we can forget the passphrase to our wallet, so having a nice way to recover your digital identity is critical for a protocol. For this reason, the Farcaster protocol allows users to set a recovery address to protect their 

. It is important to note that this recovery only works for loss of access, not address compromise.

The recovery address can request a transfer to a new custody address after a three-day escrow.

As mentioned before, the Hubs use delta graphs to save the messages and synchronize the social network state between the nodes.

In this graph, each vertex is an entity like a user or message, and an edge is a relationship between the entities. When @alice creates a message, and @bob likes it, the protocol will create a series of deltas that will be easy to synchronize between the nodes.

Farcaster distinguishes between six types of deltas:

, which are reactions to a user's messages from another user (e.g., a like)

, which are amplifications or endorsements of a user

, which are proofs of ownership (e.g., an Ethereum address signature)

, which are key pairs authorized by a user to sign their deltas

, which are metadata about the user (e.g., their profile picture)

While Farcaster lives in Ethereum and has an off-chain solution (Farcaster Hubs) for storing the information, Lens uses the L2 Polygon blockchain.

Like Farcaster, you will need a "Profile" to participate in the protocol. A Profile is a sequential ID that an NFT will represent. The NFT will belong to a wallet address, and the owner is the person who will control the profile. Profile owners can:

 upgradable contract if your wallet address is included in the list (as with Farcaster, right now, you can only join by invitation or by buying a profile on a marketplace like OpenSea).

Once you have a Lens Profile NFT, you can post publications to it. Moreover, the NFT will have the history of all the publications, comments, etc., that the owner generates.

One interesting feature of LEns is that Profiles, and almost every protocol item, can have different modules that expand their functionality. For example, Profile NFTs contain a 

. This module has rules allowing other Profiles to follow it back and save it on-chain.

Right now, as with Farcaster, Profiles can only be minted by addresses that its government has approved. As before, this is done to avoid bots and fake accounts.

Once you have a Profile NFT, you can start posting Publications. A Publication can be a message, a comment, etc. 

Lens has 3 types of Publications: posts, comments, and mirrors. 

Publications are posted directly to a user's Profile. This means that all the created content by the user will remain in the person's wallet. It is important to note that Publications are 

Each Publication has a ContentURI that has a link to the content that the publication contains. This link could point to a text, an image, a video... stored on a decentralized solution like 

, or a web2 storage facility like AWS S3.

When you post a Publication, two modules are attached to them: the Collect Module and the Reference Module.

The Collect Module has all the logic that allows other users to mint the publication as an NFT. The minted NFT will reference the original Publication's URI.

The Reference Module has all the logic related to comments on the publication's Publication and the mirrors (retweets).

Comments give users the power to add feedback. Under the hood, they are like Publications with some extra checks and features.

As Comments are like Publications, comments are stored as well in the user's Profile.

One interesting feature of comments is that they must follow the rules of the original publication Reference module conditions. If, for example, there is a rule that sets that only followers of the Profile NFT can comment, then if a Profile NFT tries to comment on the publication and it is not following the original poster, the transaction will fail, and the comment will not be published.

Comments can also be collected, as they are based on Publications. Thus, people can mint an NFT from a good comment they like.

Mirrors are the way we retweet Tweets on Twitter. From the Protocol point of view, they work the same as Publications with some special treats.

As with comments, mirrors must adhere to the reference module's original poster conditions. If a publication limit mirrors only accounts that follow the original poster, then anyone not meeting the rule cannot mirror the post.

Unlike Publications and Comments, mirrors cannot be collected.

Collect is a native feature of Lens that allows creators to monetize their content. As creators can publish almost anything: images, videos, podcasts, art, etc., this module was created to set a price and allow other profiles to collect (mint) them.

The process is simple: when you create a Publication, you can enable the Collect Module. This module opens the minting functionality for that Publication based on the ContentURI. The module can have any arbitrary logic to set the rules the creator wants to create, for example: free for a given amount of time or a given amount of collects.

Finally, following other users in the Lens Protocol differs slightly from Farcaster and other web2 social networks. As we've seen, everything becomes an NFT or is saved within the Profile NFT. Thus, users who follow a profile on the Lens Protocol receive a Follow NFT.

As with all the previous items, Profile NFTs can have their own Follow Module, setting their own rules. This means you could enforce that to follow you back you have to pay 5 MATIC. Ultimately, you are "minting" the token showing that you are following that profile, and the profile owner can set the rules.

One really cool feature of the Follow NFTs is that this module has built-in governance capabilities like vote delegation. This feature can enable the creation of Social DAOs within the Lens Protocol.

It could be possible to create rules that allow giving followers more voting power if they were followers since the beginning or similar things.

If you have read until here, you should now have more or less a clear idea of the design principles of these two social decentralized networks. Each of them has its advantages and problems.

On Farcaster, you will have to renew your handle once a year. On Lens, you only will do this once. Which one is better? Well, it depends.

Farcaster has always wanted to have high-quality conversations, and one of the reasons for asking people to pay for their profiles is to support the Hubs and ensure that you will put some skin in the game. While I can see the benefits, in my head, I hesitate if this will ensure that Farcaster will be massively adopted. But do they want to be massively adopted? More users will mean more noise, and I think they are trying to reduce that ratio by providing high-quality profiles in their network. So far, I can assure you that the conversations on Farcaster are amazing and deep. 

On the other hand, we have Lens. Anyone can mint their handle and will not have to renew it. While this is neat, it allows people to create profiles for big brands (like it is happening already with ENS or domains) and charge people to control that social media profile. Is this good? Speculation will be a big problem, as the profiles do not expire (like in Farcaster do), so only time will tell.

One of Lens's most interesting features is that everything is saved on-chain in your profile. The protocol creates contracts for your publications, so any client that uses the protocol will show you exactly the same content. Your followers and content go with you.

On the other hand, Farcaster allows you to have more flexibility. While Lens seems nice, I've been playing with "Instagram clones" that show only the Publications that are images. This sounds cool, but I cannot separate my content, while on Farcaster, I could. Each app could rely on the delta graph and build its list of followers. The only problem with this is that you will have to "export somehow" your followers if you want to change your clients. Is it good? Bad? Time will tell.

Everything on-chain vs. Something on-chain

Lens uses Polygon for all the transactions. Everything is saved in Polygon, while Farcaster uses its off-chain solution.

The approach from Lens is that everything will be saved in your wallet as an NFT with different contracts created for you (the modules). This is smart because your social graph and posts could grow in number forever. However, Hubs on Farcaster have a 

 of the delta graph (64TB). This graph size has been limited to removing old posts and making things interesting, to say the least. I like this approach because the graph forgets, aligning with GDPR principles about the right to be forgotten. The lens approach is "simple"; as you own everything, you should be able to destroy/burn everything. But as you know, the blockchain will have the history, so everyone can point out what you said/did at a given time. It could be interesting to see where the GDPR stands here.

On Lens, you can extend the modules, so the options are endless. On Farcaster, you will have to propose changes to the protocol, and all the hubs should be upgraded to support those changes. Which one is better? I like a lot the Lens approach, as everything is a contract that can be deployed with its own rules. However, the Farcaster approach seems more like any other open-source project, which is nice and well done. As with other solutions, time will tell.

Well, this is completely subjective because I use both, and I like both. However, I can see big differences so far.

Farcaster, for me, is the place to find deep and interesting conversations. The engagement with the community is amazing, and I'm always learning from someone. It is huge compared to Twitter, where all I see in general is promotion and discussions with tons of hate involved. Here the discussions are civilized, people behave, and even when disagreeing, you feel at home learning from everyone.

On the other hand, Lens is the place for artists and creators. I've many more followers on Lens than Farcaster but less engagement. While my publications get several likes and mirrors, I indeed get almost zero interaction from comments on my posts. It looks like all the likes and followers are fake, as I don't have interaction via comments with other people. It is a weird feeling even though the technology is amazing. I love collecting; I love how you can set up rules for following you, collecting your posts, etc. One cool feature from Lens is 

 which allows you to create paid conditions for people who mirror your posts. Instead of paying the platform, you pay your followers and Lens users for helping you bring your content to others. This is neat, but it opens the door to discussing if people with less money will always have difficulty growing a community around. Obviously, the answer to this question is: if you have good content, people will come, but that's not always the case.

Both protocols now have several client apps. Each one has its own pros/cons, but it is becoming fun to test them all and see the experience. 

 are the 3 mobile apps that you can use on Lens, while 

Warpcast is, for now, the only full-featured client on Farcaster, but Jam will join soon enough (looking forward to testing it). As explained before, what will be interesting to test here is that my social graph on Warpcast will not exist on Jam, so I will have to create a new one from scratch. 

With Lens, I've tried Phaver and Orb. Phaver is weird; I don't get it. The UX is strange because they have its social network, and you can switch between theirs and Lens. This also forces you to change some settings to use it, making it a bit awkward. Orb, on the other hand, is a full-featured solution. Minor details are missing, like setting the collect options from the client, but this will be solved in the coming releases for sure.

In summary: if you can try both. I think they are going to have their communities, and it will be fun to be on both at the same time. As everything is decentralized, several apps will make it possible to have only one app that allows you to have everything in one place, like 

 (looking to test it as well). The truth is that social networks were not been this exciting in years.

Decentralized social protocols face to face

Farcaster vs Lens Protocol

On Top of Ruins

My thoughts on engineering, cryptography, protocols and AI

As social media continues to play an increasingly central role in our lives, new protocols have emerged to address some of the key concerns and limitations of current platforms. Among them are the AT Protocol (ATP) developed by Bluesky and Farcaster (FC), both of which aim to create a new generation of social networks. Despite sharing this common goal, their unique designs and tradeoffs set them apart from one another. In this essay, we will explore and compare the strengths and weaknesses of ATP and FC, as well as the implications of their approaches for the future of social media.

Identity is a crucial element of social networks. Both protocols aim to provide account portability, enabling users to migrate their identities to a new service provider without existing server’s cooperation, unlike Fediverse (e.g. Mastodon). This is accomplished by creating user handles that resolve into public keys for message signing, enabling authentication of user data, regardless of server location.

Both protocols employ a 2-tier identifier design, consisting of a permanent stable identifier that is not easily readable (FID in Farcaster and DID in Bluesky), as well as a readable and changeable user handle (FNAME and DNS name, respectively).

ATP’s design incorporates generic standards such as Decentralized Identifiers (DID) and DNS, promoting extensibility and interoperability. However, the current implementation uses a unique DID method, DID Placeholder (PLC), as they aren’t satisfied with existing DID methods. The PLC method relies on a centralized "PLC server" to store the signed DID document (comparable to the FID smart contract of FC), and is named "Placeholder" because it is intended to be replaced by a decentralized alternative in the future.

In ATP, user handles are DNS names that resolves into DIDs. Contrary to popular belief, DNS is a viable option for decentralized identities if one accepts the ICANN’s multistakeholder governance model as sufficiently neutral. However, the primary issue with DNS lies in its user experience.

DNS registries are legacy systems that lacks a unified API, making it difficult to fully automate registration and management without introducing additional middlemen such as Cloudflare. As a result, most users opt for free subdomain names provided by service providers (e.g. *.

) instead of registering a new domain name, as setting up DNS is often too complex. However, this approach may undermine the goal of account portability.

FC has developed a specialized identity system using Ethereum smart contracts, offering several benefits. Interactions with smart contracts can be abstracted away from users, and FID, a simple number, is marginally usable on its own. Furthermore, FNAME registration fee can directly fund protocol development, unlike DNS registration fees which do not benefit ATP. Finally, FNAME are usually shorter than DNS names because it is free from the problem of domain squatting. However, FC needs to establish its own governance structure for true decentralization, as it lacks a neutral entity like ICANN that govern DNS.

Censorship and moderation may seem like opposite sides of the same coin. Censorship is often frowned upon, but moderation is necessary for healthy conversations. Without moderation, spam and unwanted messages can overwhelm the platform, making it unusable. Therefore, a balance must be struck between allowing free speech and maintaining a productive and engaging platform. Both protocols aim to offer some level of censorship resistance, but their network architectures differ significantly.

ATP distinguishes between "small-world" and "big-world”. The small-world network encompasses inter-personal activity and is owned by users, while the big-world network aggregates activities in the larger network and provides useful functions such as content discovery (algorithms) and user search.

In ATP, Personal Data Servers (PDS) are responsible for the small-world, and apps use indexing services to access the big-world network. PDS is user-owned, giving users the freedom to change service providers or even host the PDS server themselves. PDSs synchronize data with other PDSs using a HTTP-based protocol according to follow graphs, similar to the federation model in Fediverse and Mastodon. However, ATP's guarantee of account portability sets it apart as a better model. In contrast, big-world is expected to be provided by larger service providers and may be subject to censorship or moderation.

In FC, the Hub is conceptually a combination of the small-world and big-world, with Hubs being responsible for storing and disseminating every user's data. The Hub disseminates messages using a gossip-based peer-to-peer protocol. The P2P design ensures messages to be propagated through the network even if some Hubs may try to censor them. 

Both ATP and FC use Merkle trees for synchronization, but they differ in how the trees are implemented, resulting in unique tradeoffs for each protocol.

ATP uses a Merkle Search Tree where each user has an individual tree and signs the tree's root. This design allows for easier moderation and spam filtering as PDS and indexers can choose to ignore certain users when syncing. Additionally, the self-balancing nature of the MST provides some efficiency benefits over FC's approach. 

In ATP, users specify a single PDS as their primary data store. Since the PDS only needs to store the data of specific users, it is reasonable to assume that it can permanently store the entire history of the user. However, since PDS and client apps are considered as two separate tiers, users need to choose a reliable PDS hosting service, which can be a hurdle for some users.

FC uses a Merkle Patricia Trie that represents the world's state, and users sign their own messages. This approach makes it efficient to sync the world's state, but it may also lead to spam issues as there is no apparent way for Hubs to selectively ignore some users. Users are not required to have a specific "Home Hub," and the Hubs are expected to be integrated into the apps that users use. However, to manage each Hub's storage and bandwidth usage, there are restrictions on the size and number of messages each user can store in the network.

At this moment, there is no clear winner between ATP and FC as both have their own strengths and weaknesses. Farcaster's best feature is its decentralized identity system with a clear path for sustainability, while ATP's identity system is less developed, due in part to its tendency to avoid blockchain technology, especially Ethereum. However, FC's current architecture is constrained by scalability issues and lacks an in-protocol method to store user data permanently. Nevertheless, the emergence of new social networks is a positive development, as competition can promote the exchange of innovative ideas between protocols, benefiting both.

Technical comparison of two decentralized social protocols

AT Protocol vs Farcaster

not pseudo profound

yes3 是一个 protocol。yes3 也指代该protocol 的极简 web 前端（用以展示 yes3 protocol 的可能性）. yes3 现在的功能非常简单, A 问B 一个问题, B 可以回答 是 否 或者 不知道. 该回答会以 SBT 的形式被记录在链. 

https://ethglobal.com/showcase/yes3-qwjop

 是一个简易的前端的演示视频.

For English Readers, please check out the older version at 

微信直接点开的没有排版, 建议复制到浏览器查看.

在区块链语境下, 信息大致有四种, 线上清晰信息, 线上模糊信息, 实体世界清晰信息, 实体世界模糊信息.

其中清晰信息的上链通常比较容易, 不论是线上清晰信息, 比如某网站的访问量, 还是实体世界清晰信息如足球比赛比分, 天气温度, 都可以通过目前的典型预言机上链.

而模糊信息的上链则更为复杂, 比如线上和人语音开会觉得对方的观点很有价值, 或者实体世界踢球觉得对手踢的不错.

yes3 是关于模糊信息的共识上链的一种手段, 以提问者作为上链动作的发起者(也是需求者), 以问答的形式获得双方共识, 从而让模糊信息获得基于至少两个人共识的见证 (attestation). 比如我可问你「刚才吃饭中, 我提到 NLP 可以作为一种新的 UX 这个观点, 你是否觉得有道理?」你如果回答 yes. 那么我们关于这个对话, 一条在实体世界的模糊信息的共识, 便上链了.

模糊信息上链的种种价值，还有待挖掘(*有待在后续版本补充*)，这里指出其中一个抽象价值，如同网络国家中所说, 作为不可篡改历史, 可以给与所有人公平的权力去叙述历史.

双人共识 作为 弱见证的组件 以 提供基本可信度 

这里需要强调一点: 本质上, 通过 yes3上链的是共识, 而不是信息和事件本身. 共识未必符合事件实际的情况. 如果想让二者统一, 如果想知道链下真的发生了什么, 则需要额外的激励机制 和信用机制. 这些机制将不会在yes3 protocol 中实现. yes3只是一个共识层, 不对信息的真伪做判断. 在链上信用机制整体更加成熟的未来, 我们希望开发基于yes3 数据的激励层和信用层protocol, 来去发现事件的真伪.

由于缺乏激励和信用, yes3 只可以说对事件进行了弱见证. 当然, 弱见证在很多情况下也是相对可信, 值得参考的, 就好像人们会相信大部分朋友发的朋友圈分享是大致真实的.  yes3 由于是基于 2 人共识的见证, 在其他条件一致的情况下, 其可信度应该高于朋友圈, 微博, 等单人表达. 比如, A 一条 pyq 说 「我和 B 喝酒 ，把 B 喝倒了」， 其可信度低于 如下问答：A 问「今天我们喝酒，你是不是倒了」， B 回答是。

yes3 选择双人共识作为基本单位。首先，部分信息类型，包括但不限于关系型，私下互动型，双人共识已经有实际上值得参考的可信度，如前例所示。其次，对需要更多人共识的场景，也可以抽象为双人共识的组合。例如，A 可将问题「我今日在上海新天地穿azuki的帽衫跳了一段街舞，是否？」问 B，C，D等几个人，通过获得多个「是」，来去增加该信息的可信度，如果B，C，D等人是 azuki 的holder， 或者运营团队，则他们的「是」会更加可信。

虽然 yes3 并不会有独立的信任机制（比如一个信用分数），但 yes3 所产生的问答，如前例所示，也拥有一些可信度。究其原因：在网络上, 有些人已经拥有了声誉。

声誉的来源可能很多, 比如ta是你现实中认识的朋友，或者线上合作过项目的队友，比如ta 的github 上有个 5000 个 star 的项目, 比如ta 作为 CEO 运营一家世界五百强公司, 比如 ta 发起了以太坊项目, 比如ta 写了几篇爆款文章, 比如ta钱包里有 500E, 以及等值的 NFT. 你可以通过一些证据, 来去判断/验证 ta 的声誉.

yes3 本身不生产声誉， yes3是声誉的搬运工，是一种声誉的流动和传递机制.  比如当我问一个 5000 star github 核心贡献者, 「我于 2023 年 1 月 23 日发现的用户资产可能被错误授权的bug  是否有价值.」 他回答 yes. 那么他的声誉就相当于有一部分流动到了我身上. 其他人就可以通过确认这个核心贡献者的声誉, 来认可我对该项目的贡献. 这样声誉的的传递可以不只是一度的, 我还可以通过回答其他人的问题, 来进一步传递声誉.

传统的web 社交关系局限于几种：关注，好友，点赞，etc. 关系本身是同质化的，不带语境的。在这类社交图谱中，我们通常无法知道两个人的关系究竟意味着什么，他们是经常一起吃饭，还是工作伙伴，抑或者是共同好友介绍认识？ 经 yes3 的问答产生的关系是有语义的，带有语境的。比如，A问「你读完我关于 HK mplus sigg特展的 文章，是否对中国当代艺术产生了更多的兴趣？」。B回答 yes。 那么A和B的这个关系就是一种读者和作者之间的关系，语境是 sigg 特展。

这个特性带来一些有趣的可能性。比如，借助自然语言处理，我们可以选取语义类似的关系，组成一张有主题的社交关系网络。比如可能一张由食物链接的社交网络，或者一张由Nike产品链接的社交网络。有语义的社交关系也可以帮助用户更好的去探索自己的弱联系，通过阅读一些自己不熟的朋友（或者只是二度关系的存在）和他们社交网络中的其他人的关系语义，尤其是和自己熟悉的朋友的关系语义，用户可以更好的理解自己的弱关系，从而更好的与之互动。

在拥有 基本可信度 以及 语义的关系的前提下，有一类关系值得单独阐述，即围绕着创作者的关系。读者和作者的关系有一个天然的语境，即作品。yes3可以非常自然的帮助创作者记录这种关系。比如，A 问「你否觉得 我在 以太坊2023路线图解析 中对splurge的解释清晰易懂，新手友好？」然后几位以太坊基金会核心贡献者B，C，D回答了「是」。

该记录对创作者的声誉有独特意义，以前创作者的声誉主要标准是阅读量，粉丝数。yes3 让作者通过为自己的作品寻求专业人士的特定认可，从而建立自己的声誉。该记录也可能拓宽内容策展的方法；比如一个平台可以决定展示所有 被超过 3 个以太坊基金会成员认可的，内容关于以太坊的，新手友好的 作品。这里后两个标签都可用自然语言算法从问题描述中推断，而第一个标签则可以通过其他链上身份dapp获得。

对有特别细致需求的策展人，也可以自己提前设置一些问题，让创作者拿这些问题去问特定群体读者，然后根据回答情况来决定如何策展。比如vitaDAO 可以 设置问题 「你认为这篇文章中提到的抗衰老的生物学原理的是否可靠（有知名期刊论文实验的支持）？」，同时设置有效回答者为vitaDAO 中一些有至少生物本科背景的成员。然后让创作者们可以拿自己的作品和这些成员寻求认证，当某个作品获得超过5个yes之后，则自动提醒vitaDAO某策展人去人工审核该作品。

这里给出一种潜在产品形式的假想设计，可以如同0xEcho在mirror里嵌入评论区一样，在mirror文章中嵌入回答问题的按钮，只需要钱包登录，即可在mirror界面一键回答问题并签名。

还有一类关系值得单独阐述, 即社区边界附近的模糊关系. 这里的关键是, 社区边界附近, 比如并非 nouns holder 但是为 nouns 社区贡献过的成员, 比如并非正式被以太坊基金会雇佣, 但是协助以太坊基金会成员推进项目的成员. 社区内部的事务, 关系也好, 信任也好, 见证也好, 其实有很多 DAO tools 可以解决; 比如用来集体决策的 snapshot, 用来认证成就的 otterspace 等. 但是在社区边界上, 很多时候没有好的链上共识传递机制,和关系的记录机制. 

以 nouns 社区举例, nouns 中文社区生态具体是由谁建立的, 谁应该获得 nouns 金库的奖励, 这个事情的追溯是困难的, 混乱的. 中文社区整个建立过程和英文社区相对独立, 其关系和共识不会自动的转到英文社区, 而需要借助某种媒介. yes3 因为不强求中心化的配置, 所以很适合在这个阶段使用. 每个成员去说服一个新成员加入的时候, 都可以问这个新成员「你是否被我带进 nouns 中文社区?」. 通过这个问题, nouns 英文社区就可以更好的理解中文社区的共识和关系, 从而进行清晰的追溯.  

再以 azuki 社区举例, 社区会组织给 holder 的线下活动, 不过线下活动另一个重要作用也许是吸引潜在买家, 让他们更了解 azuki 文化从而真的去购买 azuki. 如何去筛选可靠的潜在买家呢, 比如真的热爱 azuki 文化的人 而不是 纯粹的投机者? 他们是一个 nft 社区的边界. yes3 适合在这个情境使用, azuki 社区可以设置一些问题, 比如「我是否为 azuki CN gitbook 做了很多贡献? 」「我是否在某次 azuki 线下活动帮助邀请了一位 dj?」 等等.   然后社区可以设置一些机制, 比如任何非 azuki holder 如果在这些问题上获得超过3 个 azuki holder 的回答的 yes. 那么久可以获得一些社区的权益, 或者某次闭门活动的 pass. 这个方式允许社区更灵活的去促进社区边界的关系, 也引导 nft holder 去以简单轻量的方式帮助社区拓展这个边界.

有待在未来的版本中完善: 海龟汤, computation with human in the loop, on-chain gaming integration. 

yes3 是一个 开源的 公共的 项目.一个protocol.  一个hyperstructure .

作为一个开源项目, yes3 除了开源包括前端代码在内的的所有代码; 还会追求 build in public, 开放所有的产品/开发会议, 开放所有的产品/开发文档.

作为一个公共项目, yes3 不追求最大化捕获商业价值,  但是仍然拥有相应的治理机制去获得建设和维护所必要的资金, 以及激励相应的贡献者.

作为一个 protocol, yes3  记录 所有 回答 yes的 场景到链上. 根据具体的需求, 会有不同的 app, 比如 request for endorsement, request for promise, creator-reader interaction, opinion pooling, human oracle etc. 根据具体的场景，会有不同的UI/UX，比如 yes3 farcaster integration, yes3 link3 integration, yes3 mirror addon, yes3 discord bot, yes3 TG bot, etc. yes3 在 protocol 层面会不断开发功能来便利 app 的开发者, 比如 ZK permission management, programmable gating, customizable query, etc. yes3 追求极致的可互操作性，yes3 产生的 SBT 是互操作的媒介。 yes3 创造的是通用的类型, 由用户和具体产品开发者来创造具体的实例.

作为一个 hyperstructure, yes3 追求即使在无人值守的情况下, 永久的运行在链上的能力.

具体的 governance 机制仍然有待设计, 不过以下是一些设计参考的原则.

1 内容管理由一个 DAO 完成, 并获得某种相应激励.

2 核心 protocol 开发和设计决策(代码管理)在早期会以比较 centralized 的方式进行(但仍然是完全开放的), 在 protocol 进入稳定期之后, 早期核心团队交出修改代码的权力到某种治理机制下.

3 yes3 app 生态会以 decentralized 的方式开始, 任何开发者都可以 permissionless 的基于 yes3 protocol 进行开发. protocol 核心团队也会开发一些 app, 来冷启动整个生态以及展示 yes3 protocol 的潜在用法. 基于 yes3 的 app 可以是商业产品.

4 应该有某种tokenomics 来激励投资人和贡献者, 以及作为protocol 稳定期治理机制的一部分.

1 上线 主网目前的简陋版本 作为 alpha test.

2 设计初步的 tokenomics 和 治理机制.

3.1 应当把相应的 代币和治理的接口留出

3.2 支持从 yes3 alpha 版本导入数据.

3.3 使用 ZK 支持 SBT 展示的权限控制

3.4 使用 off chain LLM 来协助合并相同问题

3.6 支持按照 问答 SBT 拥有情况去检索符合条件的用户.

3.8 设计一个问题 NFT 管理页面, 包括设计 NFT owner 对 问答 SBT 的影响方式.

3.9 实现一个 SBT flow graph visualization

一个有信任传递 和 语义关系的 公共 社交图谱

yes3 白皮书 v0.1 CN

The Web3/AI blog

I originally wrote this post on January 12 / 2023, but I decided to update it with new information that has come to light. I also eliminated the section on Web2 blogging alternatives since those havn't changed and I want to focus on Web3 tech. I have had a chance to use the newer ones a little more, and added a new alternative to the list which I discovered recently. I honestly believe that the future is multichain/crosschain, and that we will have better integration in the future. So your choices won't be carved in stone. We will be able to focus more on the dapps and chose the best ones for our needs, as long as they run on a solid and reliable platform. Here is a good article  from 

. I completely agree with his strategy, and couldn't have said it better myself. It applies to NFT's but also content and even tokens. I like what Deso is doing with 

. You can convert coins from different chains without having to go thru a custodial exchange. You can swap directly from your wallet. The same should be true for content as well. 

, but the UI is better, and it is easier to use. It integrates with the Farcaster web3 social network for social interaction and that is a good feature. It also compares favorably to

 Paragraph supports monetization with subscriptions and gated/premium content. There is also an integration with 

for minting and selling NFT's, which can be used in the gating process, or embedded in a post (like below). 

It also has good discovery for reading posts, but it could benefit from a text search which is supposed to be coming in a future release. There are also some rumours that some AI features will also be added which could be very useful in writing posts. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. 

I was really surprised with this one. It is running on a Bitcoin Sidechain or "Layer" called 

 which supports smart contracts, so that you can finally have Defi, NFT's, social etc. with bitcoin as the settlement layer (instead of Eth in the case of most defi, social etc.) I discovered this when I started testing and researching Nostr, which has a similar approach in the sense that it supports Bitcoin lightning network for payments (but it doesn't run on Stacks in their case). However, the concept is similar. 

I was surprised at how fast and easy it was to onboard and use 

for blogging. I don't know what the future holds, so I am hedging my bets and keeping an open mind. In my opinion, any reasonable decentralized solution on Web3 is better than the centralized Web2 counterpart, and blogging is no exception. You do need a bitcoin wallet that handles stx tokens. I used something called Xverse, which is a chrome extension, and works similar to Metamask, except that its supports the stacks.co platform instead of EVM. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts to this alternative. I never thought I would say this but, it seems to function quite well. However you will have to upgrade for premium features like newsletters and monetization. 

I have also been testing some Bitcoin/NFT platforms and they are in the early stages as well as the social platforms. But they seem to have developers working on them. Try it and see if you agree. 

This is a really nice blogging platform which I just discovered recently, and it is quite new. I have started testing it out, but so far I am suitable impressed. It is well worth evaluating, especially if you are familiar with Solana. It has a unique incentive structure which encourages participation, and quality posts. I was able to enter and save my first blog post, but was not able to publish it until I earn more points. This results in higher quality content, and more commitment from the authors and readers. There is also a way to monetize premium content. I like the reading list feature, which adds bookmarked posts to my list of articles to read later. I believe that that this platform has a lot of potential. But you will need a Solana account to write posts. An account isn't required for reading, so its easy for anyone to browse the articles.

3 For Write3: Time For A Change

Farcaster vs Lens Protocol

AT Protocol vs Farcaster

yes3 白皮书 v0.1 CN

“Next Generation” Blogging Platforms (Revisited)

Web 3 search tools

“Next Generation” Blogging Platforms

How NFT’s and AI tools complement Web3 Social Media

AI tools for training models, and generating prompts from Images

Getting ready for Web 3.0 Social Trend