Because the answer to the question of whether fully on-chain vs partially on-chain is preferable for social is not entirely clear at the moment, and there are strong cases to be made on either side, it is going to take time before we see which model is the clear winner.
Multiple solutions will likely emerge and co-exist for a while before any specific approach ‘wins out’. As we have seen with the evolution of the internet until now, it may even be the case that there is no one winner but rather a spectrum of layered approaches.
Because of that, founders are naturally most likely to start by taking the path of least resistance and the greatest likelihood of success by tapping into an existing ‘known quantity’ L1 protocol and ecosystem, such as ETH or SOL. There will be significant pressure to focus on short-term results at the expense of fully vetting the protocols they are building on and building with a long-term future in mind. This means that likely protocols with an established reputation and dApp ecosystem are likely to attract increased attention in the short term.
Over time, a few things will become clear: (1) how much of the content needs to be fully on the chain to provide an optimal user and creator experience - this will become clear based on the functionality capabilities dapps can have on different models, their call latency etc, costliness to run.
Now, unlikely to be a binary outcome. Probabilistically speaking, it’s likely there will be a middle ground, and multiple different models will co-exist, competing and collaborating for a number of years. This will include traditional web2 platforms integrating digital currency-enabled protocols capabilities in an attempt to evolve their own business models and compete with emerging web3 decentralized models.
Additional challenges: the user “cold start” process. Once web3 is synonymous with the internet, and everyone is accustomed to receiving and spending micropayments, it won’t be a financial burden to engage since most (all?) users will be making money just by being online and allowing access to their search data, queries, etc for advertisement targeting (which I don’t think will go away). But it will take a while for that to reach scale, so early adopters who are not creators themselves will more often than not spend more than they receive for their engagement.
Consolidation will occur when certain L1s prove themselves to be technologically inferior and unable to super the UX or CX to the same level as others or when regulatory intervention selects the winners – whether officially or unofficially by virtual of the rules enacted.
Users will move throughout the various ecosystems and dapps with differing levels of ease and interoperability. Not all features will always be ported overall (ie, Entre doesn’t allow followers to port over, nor does its point system connect with DESO cryptocurrency. The only integration is the log-in and cross-chain posting).
Creators, just like they do in web2, will look for platforms they can both grow the largest audience and be paid the most for it. L1 chains and dapps will compete with tokenomics and Ux to get them and use them to bring their audience with them. In the end, UX and CX (creator experience) and incentives will determine who wins this battle.
What is different this time?
Existing Infrastructure -> Whereas the initial protocols that build the internet as we know it today started from 0, today’s are entering into a crowded marketplace with significant inertia towards the status quo. This will change the adoption and competition trajectory and is likely to result in a divergent path to scale vs web 1 and web 2.
Timeframe -> Just as the timeframe for innovation and adoption of new technologies has been increasing over subsequent previous periods, we should expect that the adoption lifecycle for blockchain will be compressed. This means that we will see more rapid product lifecycles, expansions, and destructions, not the omission of them.