jakiro
来源：chainfeeds
Last year, on the SocialFi track, Friend.tech was once a leading lead. Then due to the uncertainty of the tokens and the unsustainable “FI” attributes, Friend.tech was cold.而近期，其凭借其创新的 V2 版本再次引领了市场的热潮，这次 Friend.tech 可以逃过 SocialFi 的旁氏陷阱吗？
v1 缺陷分析
Friend.tech 主要功能是通过 keys 来访问独家内容或进行交互，其中 keys 的价格采用「bonding curve」机制设计，即随着购买量的增加呈指数级增长Essence具体的计算公式为二次方程式：下一个 key 的价格=（当前 key 数量）2/ 16000 x 1 ETH。
The original intention of this model is to create a speculative environment that allows early buyers to enter at a lower price and increase the price through the increase in the number of market participants, and gradually increase prices to inspire more early investment and active markets.However, buying and selling requires a 10% tax, so it is difficult for new buyers to participate in high prices, especially when the market is close to saturation, the cost of new joins is extremely high.Profitable, this has challenged the long -term continuous development of the platform.At the same time, because FT’s Bonding Curve is too steep, it also brings significant risks. Especially when user participation declines, it is easy to lead to the rapid decline in KEY value and cause market collapse.
>
Picture source: Mirror (Based Toschi)
so,尽管 bonding curve 模型能够鼓励早期的市场参与，但它本身并不促进长期稳定或持续的用户参与EssenceAt the beginning, in order to support each other, members of the community formed (3,3), and the spiral rose. Later, when the market was turbulent or someone “sneaked”, the original expected spiral was quickly reversed, resulting in the reduction of community activities, thereby making the whole entire entire平台的吸引力和活力受损，这也是为什么后来FT 社区趋于冷清。
V2 mechanism analysis
Friend.tech V2 has launched a number of innovative functions and enhanced token models, committed to improving user participation and platform practicality.The eye -catching is“Money Club” function,,This is a space similar to the paid community, and each of the new members who enter the group need to pay the increasing priceThis design not only increases the monetization capacity of the platform, but also promotes the value improvement of the community’s active interaction and content creators.Each CLUB chairman is voted by Key holder to manage CLUB and designated moderators, which enhances the community’s sense of autonomy and participation.
In order to overcome the dilemma encountered in the V1 version, the V2 version has introduced the new integration system and custom curve function, and the user can create a personalized mechanism according to his own participation.The flexibility of this design helps to meet the needs of different user groups and improve the overall satisfaction and activity of users.
also,CLUB’s transaction only supports Friend token, and each transaction will charge 1.5% of the feeEssenceThis cost mechanism has created additional sources of income for the platform, and may also help regulate trading activities and suppress potential speculation.
>
Picture source: dune (msilb7 & amp; What_hunter)
As of writing (May 13), Dune instrument panel data shows,FRIEND.TECH has created 202,000 Clubs, while the number of CLUB traders reached 160,000, and the transaction volume reached 23.55 million Friend (the market price was paid to $ 51.1 million)EssenceBut it is worth noting that the Claim $ Friend airdrop, the initial userCan only claim 10% of its share,,The remaining 90%You need to add at least one club to Claim.Therefore, the surge in CLUB’s transaction activities is inseparable from this CLAIM rule.
In general, the launch of V2 still brings a lot of increments to FT.But observing daily transactions, CLUB transactions are decreasing.
Where is the dilemma of SocialFi?
From the data of Friend.tech and the market response, it is not difficult to see that the early market’s expectations of its tokens have brought huge TVL and interactive activities. As the tokens are launched, users have completed the airdrops, and the transaction volume is decreasing.The loss of users has also become the biggest pain point of SocialFi.
Look at the dilemma of SocialFi into two points:
1)User retaining problem: For the SocialFi project, attracting and retaining users is a major challenge.These platforms often require users to understand and accept complex concepts such as blockchain technology and token economics, which is an entry threshold for users who are unfamiliar with crypto technology.But if you only attract users in the circle, how to balance the “FI” attribute and Social gameplay is a big problem.In addition, the transfer from a traditional social media platform with a huge user foundation and mature network effects to a new decentralized platform may progress slowly and challenging.
2)Economic and Vibration model issues: SocialFi requires sustainable economic models to develop.Traditional social media platforms seriously depend on advertising revenue, but SocialFi aims to directly redefine the value from users and creators through social tokens and NFT mechanisms.The development and balanced token economics provides true value without causing inflation or use, which is essential.The FT mode shows that although the steep Bonding Curve brings a certain benefit effect, high -value Key is almost impossible to achieve economic returns.Because with the growth of users and protocol data, if the growth is stagnant or decreased, the speculative purchase of high -priced Key will no longer be feasible.
To ensure long -term success, the SocialFi project must innovate to solve these problems, provide more friendly user experience, and at the same time build an economic model that can continue to attract and motivate users to participate.Over time, only those platforms that can effectively integrate social functions and financial incentives can stand out in a competitive market and achieve real growth and user loyalty.
Innovative attempts of other SocialFi projects
Farcaster: Pay more attention to social attributes
Farcaster did not issue the platform tokens, but in the ecology, Memecoin was frequent.The Farcaster mechanism design reflects its advantages, especially in establishing decentralized social networks.First of all, Farcaster allows users to maintain the coherence of social maps between different applications, and can maintain their identity and network connection even between different social applications.This method greatly reduces the influence of centralized entities and ensures the control of user data.In addition, Farcaster’s open source code and authority design encourages developers to innovate and integrate new functions, providing higher flexibility and user -driven experience for social media applications.Users and developers can freely build and expand social networks, making Farcaster a highly modular and combined platform.In comparison, Friendtech’s economic model shows some design defects, such as the lack of and excessive relying on advertising revenue to the value of the currency, may restrict its long -term development.Farcaster’s design allows it to adapt to user needs and market changes more effectively, providing a more fair and sustainable social network environment.
Phaver: Emphasize the incentives of user contribution and participation more
Phaver’s mechanism allows users to share and integrate responses through cross -protocol (such as Lens Protocol and Farcaster), which provides users with wider interaction and stronger social network influence.In addition, the non -custody and the characteristics of PHAVER applied to allow users to control their social maps and data more freely, rather than being limited by centralized platforms.
Phaver also launched a $ Social tokens to enhance the interactivity and reward mechanism of its ecosystem.Users can earn points by actively contributing on the platform and exchanged these points to $ Social tokens in specific activities.In addition, holding the $ Social tokens can also improve users’ credit level and monthly withdrawal amount, and then obtain more platform rights and opportunities for early access to new features.
Compared with the economic model of Friend.tech, Phaver’s design emphasizes the inspiration and participation of user contributions and participation. Through the tokenization methods, the community’s activity and user stickiness are strengthened.These designs of Phaver make it have certain competitive advantages in the SocialFi market, especially in building decentralized and user -driven social networks.
At the end
When exploring the dilemma of economic model sustainability and user retention rate in the field of SocialFi, we also observed the innovation attempts of other platforms such as FARCASTER and Phaver.Through their unique mechanism design, these platforms try to solve the problem of insufficient user activity and imbalance in economic models.
Although these designs are theoretically attractive, whether they are really better than Friend.tech, or whether their design can provide a more balanced “FI” and social attribute combination in the long run, it is still difficult to concludeEssenceIn the end, which model can better balance the characteristics of finance and social and meet the needs of users, it is still a question to be answered.
