Is Balaji's Farcaster acquisition the next chapter of decentralized social, or a corruption of it?
Governance & community · 8 participants · 9 quotes · 2026-10-15 ~ 2026-10-16
After Jason Chaskin of the EF welcomed Balaji Srinivasan's acquisition of Farcaster as the next chapter of decentralized social, arguing that 'it is a centralized app, but it sits on a decentralized protocol, so the key is whether you can keep your following and build apps with different rules,' donnoh and many users pushed back, saying 'the next chapter is techno fascism' and that banning people from day one of launch is far from decentralized.
Background
Farcaster is a decentralized social protocol designed so that users can move between multiple client apps while keeping their social graph (following), without being tied to any one client app. Balaji Srinivasan is the person who proposed the Network State concept, and after his acquisition some users complained of being banned from the client, and a controversy over a loyalty pledge arose. Around the same time, gakonst introduced the tempo team as the 'former Farcaster team,' implying that the existing team had moved on.
Why it matters
As ownership of a flagship decentralized social experiment nurtured by the Ethereum ecosystem changes hands, it becomes a test of whether the 'separation of protocol and app' actually protects users. The point to watch is how the acquirer's political leanings and client-level moderation conflict with the protocol's decentralization.
Key points
- Does the fact that a centralized app sits on a decentralized protocol actually protect users (can they leave for an app with different rules while keeping their following)?
- Is banning users and a loyalty pledge on launch day compatible with the narrative of 'decentralized social'?
- Do the political leanings of Balaji and Network State corrupt the direction of Farcaster?
For — Looking forward to the next chapter of decentralized social
chaskin.eth, Gami 💹 StockRip.com
- The world needs decentralized social more than ever, and people are realizing the harm of walled gardens and addiction-driven algorithms (jchaskin22).
- Farcaster was always a centralized app on a decentralized protocol, and the key is whether you can keep your following while using or building apps with different rules. Balaji values this, which is why he acquired it (jchaskin22).
- It is an experiment worth trying, and he worried about Farcaster being forgotten for no reason (gami_vc).
Against — It is corruption, not decentralization
donnoh.gwei 💗, Trish 🫧, S117.eth, tomato, makemake
- Is this decentralized? Farcaster's next chapter is techno fascism, so why are you excited? (donnoh_eth).
- It may be many things, but it is not only decentralized (trishprattle).
- Banning people en masse from day one of launch is far from decentralized social (cryptobruh117).
- Signing a loyalty pledge to stay on a decentralized social network is a contradiction, and it amounts to kowtowing to fascists and neoreactionaries (thefaketomato, makemake_kbo).
Neutral — I want to cheer them on, but the day-one bans are disappointing
leopastel.eth ꓽꓽ)
- I want to support this fully, but it is sad to see genuinely great people banned from the client on launch day.