Looking at the SocialFi track from the perspective of storage issues

Original author: Aricor Markie, DeBox Research Institute

In fact, there is an impossible triangle in the ecology of the chain-decentralization, scalability, Economical, the current SocialFi storage track also has these three dimensions. This article starts from the storage problem of the SocialFi track, discusses the importance and significance of the storage problem in the SocialFi track, and sorts out and summarizes the current SocialFi track. For the current storage solution of the project, the author believes that the experience of many SocialFi products at this stage is weaker than that of Web2.0 social products. In addition, the hybrid Web3.0 storage method can ensure that important data is uploaded to the chain, and other data is stored in the centralized cloud. Among them, it is a good solution for the application of Web3.0 instant messaging (IM) at this stage.

I. Discussion on the Necessity and Importance of SocialFi’s Storage Issue

SocialFi Allows Users Realize the ownership of self-data and let the self-generated data generate actual economic value. So as to realize the readable + writable + ownable vision advocated by web3. In order to realize this vision, we must pay attention to its underlying storage track. The storage track determines the upper limit of users of SocialFi products. In the future, the expansion plan of the SocialFi track and the strategy of data on-chain will also become the technical moat of this track. To pay attention to the storage problem in the SocialFi track, the first and most important thing is to pay attention to three aspects-decentralization, scalability, and economy.

1.1 Decentralization

Existing Web2.0 social products are storage On the centralized server, the user has no ownership. The centralized platform has absolute control, and the rights between users and the platform are not equal. In the past, there have been three problems: The first problem is that social companies use user data to make profits. (eg: algorithms for profit, selling data).

The second is that social products conduct improper censorship on users. (Such as: banning speech, banning accounts, deleting posts). The last problem is that social companies conduct improper monitoring of users (such as: blocking by area, eavesdropping). Therefore, the SocialFi product of Web3.0 needs to solve the problems caused by centralization, that is, to avoid the above problems through decentralized technical means and management methods. By analyzing the storage solution of a SocialFi product, we can actually see whether it is a real Web3.0 product.

1.2 Scalability  

Scalability is very important in the field of SocialFi, which It will directly affect the user experience. Among the social products of Web2.0, the TPS of the top products, such as Twitter, Wechat, and Snapchat. are all 10w+. After the user increment and the number of daily active users have reached an order of magnitude, Social products need to have better scalability to accommodate the corresponding, ever-increasing data capacity. If Web3.0 products are required to have the same product experience, they must have excellent scalability, that is, transactions per second (TPS) must be considered.

1.3 Economics

SocialFi products need to be developed well, so we must pay attention to the cost of business . If the cost is too high, there is no way for ordinary users to participate in it, just like ordinary people in the early days could not fly by plane (manufacturing cost is too high). Therefore, at this stage, a certain degree of economy should also be maintained in terms of storage. Economics also reflects whether the project party has considered the potential economic problems brought about by future user increments in terms of storage technology, which is also crucial for Web3.0 social Dapp applications.

  2. The storage type currently adopted by SocialFi  

At this stage SocialFi's storage categories are mainly divided into three categories: On-Chain, Centralized Cloud Storage CCS, and Decentralized Cloud Storage DCS.

2.1 On-chain storage

Data on-chain refers to data storage on the chain , such as storing data on Ethereum, Solana, Deso, so that the stored data has a certain degree of programmability, and users can complete data changes, exchanges, and transactions on the chain. Such a database is decentralized and can store data permanently. But its fatal disadvantage is high cost and poor user experience. (Frequent on-chain authorization)

2.2 Centralized cloud storage

Centralized cloud Storage refers to storing data on centralized cloud servers, such as storing data on iCloud, Baidu Cloud, and Amazon Cloud. Such a storage method can enjoy the mature ecology of Web2.0 at this stage. Taking AWS as an example, it provides users with a complete set of infrastructure and application services, and provides customers with core services such as computing, network and storage. . Twitch (game streaming site) runs on the Amazon cloud. But it should be noted that data is centralized, and users do not really control their own data.

2.3 Decentralized cloud storage

Decentralized cloud storage refers to It is to store data on decentralized storage solutions, such as filecoin, Arweave, Storj on IPFS (Interplanetary File System is a network transmission protocol designed to realize distributed storage, sharing and persistence of files). This storage method has the lowest storage cost, and the stored database is decentralized. But the problems we face are lack of programmability, imperfect ecology, and weak computing power. At this stage, it is not possible to build a high-concurrency real-time communication APP based on it.

3. Impossible Triangle Quantification on SocialFi Track Storage 

3.1 Degree of Decentralization

To measure the degree of decentralization, the number of nodes must be considered. Generally speaking, the more nodes there are, the higher the degree of decentralization. The data will not be controlled by certain subjects, which also represents the security of the data. Generally speaking, the more nodes there are, the lower the risk of data loss. (Many nodes have backups.) Therefore, the author believes that the number of nodes is an important reference indicator for the degree of decentralization.

The data of the following picture mainly comes from Hunter Lampson research.

                nbsp;                           /h4>

To measure scalability, it is necessary to consider the number of transactions per second (TPS). At this stage, most of the decentralized cloud storage uses static storage. Programmability cannot be achieved between them, so it does not have TPS.

With the upgrade of virtual network machines in the future, such as the FVM that Filecoin will introduce, decentralized cloud storage will truly achieve interoperability. So here, the author only compares between on-chain and centralized storage (the data of each chain uses real-time tps).

                  ;                               

3.3 Economy

A SocialFi product must control its cost so that more people can join it. Considering that it costs $100 million to store 1GB on Ethereum, and $520,000 to store 1GB on the Solana chain. On-chain storage is impractical at this stage. Compared with centralized cloud storage, decentralized cloud storage is the most economical. Taking AWS and Filecoin as a comparison, the cost of storing 1GB/year on AWS is $0.276, while the cost of storing on filecoin is $0.043. AWS is 6.5 times that of filecoin.

Summary, the following chart can be drawn:

                                          

< p>

4. Data storage methods of existing SocialFi products 

 4.1. lens protocol  

Lens protocol is a composable decentralized social graph built on the Polygon chain. By generating a Profile as its ecological pass, the lens In the ecology, an NFT will be generated for all user behaviors, such as following others, posting collection news, reposting news, etc.

                &nb sp;                                 bsp;     

By viewing its contract on the chain and asking core members ( lens protocol contract code ) The author understands the metadata of its profile nft It is stored off-chain, and it is stored in the Data application using Json_base64 through the blockchain browser. The problem with this storage method is that the storage layer and the interaction layer are actually separated. This also means that the information generated on the chain will not be immediately fed back to the NFT metadata. In addition, the storage places of Profile NFT and dynamic (post) are also different, and dynamic metadata is stored in Arweave. The specific display is shown in the following figure:

Lens protocol is committed to creating Web3.0 Twitter, the storage method used cannot achieve real-time interaction, because the content of NFT It is stored in AR, in centralized storage, and its running platform is on the polygon chain. The behavior on the chain and the NFT will not be reflected immediately, such as adding a fan, but the Profile NFT will not change for a period of time.

4.2 Galxe

Galxe is an on-chain record certificate platform, the current The main function is to pluck the hair. Users can obtain the expectation of future airdrops by doing the tasks of the project side on Galxe. Galxe's on-chain tokens (NFTs) are all stored in IPFS. As a traffic portal of a Web3.0 project, Galxe needs to ensure that the on-chain proof it provides is immutable and traceable, and its requirements for scalability are not high. The IPFS storage it uses is very in line with product positioning.

                &nb sp;                            

Mirror is a Web3.0 content publishing platform, users can publish their own articles in Mirror, and the articles will be permanently stored in Arweave, and users can upload articles Generated as NFT and sold. Users can control their own content without being restricted by a centralized platform, and the published content is permanently stored.

As a media platform, Mirror does not require high interactivity, it only needs to pay attention to the publisher's modification of the article and the reader's reading of the article content . And the space occupied by text storage is negligible compared to video and audio. Under such circumstances, the choice of decentralized cloud storage (DCS) takes decentralization and economy into consideration.

  

< br>

4.4 Cyberconnect

Cyberconnect is a decentralized social graph protocol designed to help Users truly own their own social identities, content, and associations in social networks. The traditional Web2.0 social graph is owned by Web2.0 organizations. The platform holds your personal account, your fans, and your content. When you violate the rules and requirements of the platform, your centralized account is likely to be affected. For example, the recent alchemist Xin Jifei canceled his 6 million fan account due to the content being reported. This means that the account, uploaded content, and association (fans) cannot be retrieved, and the hard work of the operation is in vain.

Cyberconnect is to solve this problem. In Cyberconnect, users have their own social graph. Users can follow each other and associate their other accounts In your own social graph, such as Twitter account, Facebook account, Ethereum address, Opensea account, etc. There are two advantages to this. The first is that when a single account is blocked, fans can connect to a new account again through the social graph, and the user can prove that the original account belongs to you.

The second benefit is that the social graph is used as the base layer and is separated from the application layer. Users not only collect the data of multiple accounts into their own social graph, but also use the social graph as a port, and log in to various Dapps through this port. (Master key, one key can open all doors)

                                  ;                  

This kind of product design concept, in order to ensure the security of the social graph, needs to be decentralized; The highly dynamic nature of social data also requires good scalability. At this stage, the storage method used by Cyberconnect is Arweave+Ceramic. At the same time, Cyberconnect is also based on the Ceramic Protocol, so as to realize the composability of data and obtain variable dynamic data from static immutable data. (For a specific introduction to Ceramic, please see the research report of Eshita Nandini, Messari ) Although Ceramic uses sharding for expansion, it remains to be seen whether it can be used on a large scale.

4.5 Nansen connect

Nansen connect is a social software created by Nansen for Web3.0 users. With the powerful data support of Nansen.ai, this software supports currency chat , personal data on the chain shows, real-time early warning of transactions on the chain, grouping of activities on the chain (such as providing liquidity on Curve), and the NFT transactions in the app that will come in the near future, and the gift system in the app. In my opinion, this is A killer social software that serves users on the chain. (Nansen connect product sharing session )

                                                     

< br>

4.6 Deso

DeSo is a blockchain specially built for the social track. Supporting social applications, Deso's architecture mainly focuses on two aspects, a large amount of custom storage space, and perfect indexing logic. In terms of storage, most of the user's data is stored on the chain, including: user profile, dynamics and comments, all chat information (encrypted end-to-end), likes and concerns, etc.; Bare metal is used for indexing, using a custom index built by each node during the consensus period when it is synchronized with peer nodes, that is, each individual node reads data under the chain, which is compared to traditional virtual machines , which greatly improves the indexing speed of data. The method adopted by Deso allows users' data to be migrated between its chain ecology.

Although the white paper is well written, judging from the reaction in the market today, Deso is undoubtedly a failed project. Aside from its early Bitcoin recharge to the deso network, it cannot be withdrawn, and ICO is suspected of illegal securities issuance and other issues. The storage cost of Deso is also an issue worthy of attention. At present, according to the market price of $Deso, 1GB of storage on the Deso network is $6.45, which is the price when the network is hardly used by anyone. At the same time, the author believes that such a product design logic is unreasonable. When every news, attention, and comment are financialized, the product experience will undoubtedly be torn into many small fragments, which cannot be well preserved. live users.

5. About the future of SocialFi Prospects on storage issues

Currently limited by the programmability of existing decentralized storage, most of the stored data is static and non-interactive . At the same time, it is also limited by the problem of computing speed. At this stage, it is difficult for IM's SocialFi products to be completely built on a decentralized network. At the same time, the market share of decentralized storage is still very small, which is positively correlated with the number of users of the entire Web3.0. Although its storage cost is already lower than that of centralized storage, whether it is Filecoin or the ecology of Arweave, both It cannot compete with mature ecosystems such as AWS and Google Cloud. Its computing power is also far behind centralized storage solutions. With the development of subsequent technologies such as Filecoin's FVM and the rise of other programmable storage public chains, the experience of future SocialFi products will be improved. The author believes that future SocialFi products can make people forget that they are actually based on blockchain technology.

Summary

On-chain storage, centralized cloud storage, and decentralized storage are now Neither stage is a perfect solution, and neither can take into account decentralization, scalability, and economy. It is still in the early stage of SocialFi, and the storage method at this stage needs to be balanced on the impossible triangle of storage. SocialFi products need to choose an appropriate method according to their own vision. For example, Mirror is used as an article publishing platform. It uses the arweave storage method, which not only ensures decentralization, but also has no requirements for scalability, and is relatively cheap. In my opinion this is a good solution. However, for scalability requirements and high-frequency interactive applications, the hybrid Web3.0 storage method can ensure that important data is uploaded to the chain, and other data is stored in the centralized cloud, which may be a good solution.

Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia