Connect with us

Uncategorized

Why TikTok Should Be OnChain

Published

on

Imagine a world where your digital identity is truly your own, where every post, connection, and interaction isn’t locked within the walls of a corporate platform but exists as an extension of your personal autonomy. This isn’t a utopian vision, it’s the necessary evolution of social media in an era where digital sovereignty is a fundamental right.

For decades, we have unknowingly traded our digital independence for the convenience of centralized platforms. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, these platforms have shaped our digital lives, yet they function more like gilded cages. Every post we create, every relationship we cultivate, every conversation we engage in is ultimately controlled by corporations that can modify, monetize, or erase our digital existence with a single policy change or algorithmic decision.

A New Future for TikTok

As TikTok decides on its ownership future, Project Liberty has teamed up with Alexis Ohanian, the co-founder of Reddit and a pioneer in online community building, and Kevin O’Leary, renowned investor and entrepreneur known for his role on Shark Tank, to take the platform on-chain. Why?

At its core, this is about more than just TikTok. It’s about who controls the digital spaces where billions connect, create, and consume information. For too long, the internet’s most vibrant communities have been shaped –and ultimately governed– by a handful of corporations. Project Liberty is leading the movement to change that, ensuring that social networks serve the people who power them, not just those who own them.

The key to this shift is Frequency, a public, permissionless blockchain developed by Project Liberty’s technology team and designed specifically for high-volume social networking, reinforces the foundation of a user-driven internet, prioritizing interoperability, data sovereignty, and resilience against centralized control. Together, these initiatives aim to move social media away from corporate ownership and toward an open, user-controlled model.

TikTok, for all its cultural impact, is no different. As the debate over its ownership and data practices continues, the larger issue remains unresolved: should a single entity, whether a government or a corporation, control the social fabric of a generation? What’s at stake isn’t just who owns TikTok but whether a platform of its scale can operate outside the confines of centralized control. If it is to be reimagined within a decentralized framework, it will require a foundation built on true interoperability, user-owned data, and open governance. This is where Frequency comes in.

From TikTok to Bluesky: Building a Decentralized Future

The question of TikTok’s future highlights a much larger shift in how we think about social media. The need for decentralization is no longer theoretical, it’s an urgent necessity. Bluesky, an open-source social media project, is one attempt to answer that call.

Bluesky is not just another platform, it represents an effort to redefine the relationship between users and their digital identities. But true digital liberation demands more than good intentions, it requires a structural commitment to full decentralization. It offers a glimpse into what a decentralized social web could look like, but key vulnerabilities remain.

Bluesky, for all its promise, still relies on structural choke points that pose a risk to its long-term decentralization. Storage nodes largely remain centralized under the control of Bluesky PBC or 3rd party providers, meaning user data is still housed in locations that could become points of control. Relay and Firehose systems, responsible for data distribution, remain concentrated in the hands of a few. And while it is positive that Bluesky has implemented the W3C standard for Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs), the PLC (Public Ledger of Credentials) directory is also centralized. These may seem like small technical details at present, but history has repeatedly shown how seemingly minor technical decisions can become the very mechanisms through which power is consolidated and autonomy is eroded.

Frequency, the Backbone of a Decentralized Social Web

This is where Frequency enters the picture, not just as a blockchain, but as an entirely new framework for digital identity and social media governance. Frequency isn’t merely modifying the current model; it is rethinking how we interact online from the ground up. Instead of central authorities dictating terms, Frequency ensures that users — not platforms — hold the keys to their digital lives.

Decentralization is more than a technical shift, it’s about restoring fundamental rights. Users must have the ability to grant access to their data, but just as crucially, they must have the power to revoke it. The relationships they build online — followers, connections, conversations — must belong to them, not to a platform that can manipulate or erase them at will.

Decentralization With Purpose

Frequency operates on the principle of minimal, purposeful decentralization which makes long term sustainability of the ecosystem at population scale viable. The only data stored on-chain is what is essential to guarantee individual data rights. This design approach allows for efficient chain optimization focused on core social events, primarily activity related to account, graph, and communication primitives.This focus on core social allows for tokenized incentives to be designed around management of network capacity, with specific incentives for creators, consumers and other more specific actors left to higher levels of the technology stack.

The promise of a user-owned internet is incomplete without robust safeguards that protect personal data. Frequency ensures that users have cryptographic protection over their information, along with granular controls that dictate how their data is shared. At the same time, they should have the flexibility to impose platform-specific restrictions, ensuring that their content appears only in the digital spaces where they want it to be seen. Further, they must be able to delete their content at their discretion. They should also have the power to restrict content to specific platforms if they choose to do so.

This approach directly addresses the fundamental roadblocks that have prevented previous attempts at decentralization from scaling. Frequency ensures that no single entity — not even its own node operators—has the power to alter or censor user data. It provides a decentralized backup of Bluesky’s Firehose, ensuring that user-generated content remains accessible beyond the control of a single party. Its architecture is designed not just for ideological purity but for practical sustainability and scalability, offering minimal latency and cost-efficient operations to ensure the system remains viable for mass adoption.

Achieving Digital Self-Sovereignty

The internet was meant to be open, interconnected, and free. But today, we stand at a crossroads: either we continue to rely on corporate-controlled social media, or we take the necessary steps to create a more open, user-owned digital future.

Bluesky is a step forward, but without addressing its remaining points of centralization, it risks becoming just another walled garden, perhaps a slightly more open one, but still one where users lack true control. TikTok presents an even bigger challenge. The debate over its ownership is missing the point. The real question isn’t who should own TikTok, but whether any social media giant should be owned at all in the traditional sense. Decentralization offers a new way forward, one where platforms are built around user sovereignty, rather than corporate control.

With Frequency, we are moving one step closer to reclaiming the original promise of the internet. True digital liberation requires breaking free from the data monopolies that have defined the social media era. This isn’t just a technological upgrade, it’s a necessary shift in power.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Ваш адрес email не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *

Uncategorized

Trump-backed World Liberty Financial (WLFI) Completes $590M Token Sale

Published

on

By

World Liberty Financial (WLFI), the Donald Trump-backed crypto project, has closed its token sale after raising approximately $590 million.

The project’s raise of $590 million would put it in the top-10 list of token raises, according to data curated by ICODrops. To date, the largest token sale is EOS, which raised $4.21 billion.

EOS is a blockchain platform developed by Block.one, which later founded Bullish, CoinDesk’s owner.

On stage at Consensus 2025 in Hong Kong, WLFI co-founder Zak Folkman credited Tron’s Justin Sun with the success of the project’s token sale.

After WLFI first launched its sale, its critics called the momentum sluggish. But this changed after Sun invested $30 million into it in November 2024 and later invested more.

«When we were launching this project, it was a very heated time,» Folkman said during Consensus. «There was a lot of scrutiny on our project due to who was involved.»

This meant that traditional crypto VCs would not touch the token.

«[Sun] saw that regardless of the outcome, this project is a monumental move forward for the entire crypto community,» Folkman added during the Consensus panel.

Rules around WLFI’s token sale mean that the token was only available to accredited investors and can’t be transferred or publicly sold on exchanges. A date has not been set for an exchange listing.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

AI’s Lead Over Crypto for VC Dollars Increased in Q1’25, But Does This Race Really Matter?

Published

on

By

Crypto venture funding in the U.S. clocked in at approximately $861 million for the first three months of 2025, but was dwarfed by artificial intelligence’s nearly $20 billion haul, according to data provided by Pitchbook, showing how investors continue to pivot towards AI.

Data shows that investors closed 795 deals in the U.S in AI from January to March, with blockbuster deals like Databricks’ $15.3 billion round and Anthropic’s $2 billion raise dominating headlines.

Crypto’s largest blockbuster deal, in comparison, was Abu Dhabi’s MGX, with a $2 billion investment into Binance – the first institutional placement in the crypto exchange. Other deals of note include a $82 million raise from payment infrastructure company Mesh, ETF issuer Bitwise’s $70 million round, and digital asset bank Sygnum’s $58 million offering.

Prior reporting by Pitchbook shows that AI startups attracted one-third of global VC investment in 2024, totaling $131.5 billion, with nearly a quarter of new startups being an AI company across 4,318 VC deals, compared to crypto’s $4.9 billion across just 706 deals.

Analysis: Has AI stolen crypto’s venture dollars?

Blockbuster rounds from VCs in the AI space and headline-grabbing antics, such as OpenAI’s Sam Altman seeking trillions, and AI’s rise from technological novelty to household name thanks to transformer models, would make one think that there’s suddenly an investor preference for one over the other.

Historically, all data shows that VCs have generally favored AI over crypto, with AI and machine learning attracting consistent funding that’s expanded exponentially, according to Statista data, growing from $670 million in 2011 to $36 billion in 2020.

There’s only been one year where crypto beat AI for funding, and that comes with a caveat: narrower AI categorizations, like ABI Research‘s $22.3 billion AI estimate in 2021, suggest crypto briefly outpaced AI funding during the bullish crypto cycle before AI funding surged again to over $100 billion by 2024.

Keep in mind that all of this ignores crypto-native quirks like airdrops, which put fresh capital in the hands of users and, in turn, pump the token price, inflating the size of projects’ treasuries.

A recent report from Dragonfly found that between 2020 and 2024, the 11 largest airdrops generated $7 billion. This won’t close the gap between AI and crypto, but it shows that there are more ways to get a dollar than traditional venture capital.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Solana Inflation Reform Effort Fails on Dramatic Final Voting Day

Published

on

By

Solana’s high staking rewards will live to inflate SOL another day.

A contentious effort to reform the blockchain network’s generous inflation regime flopped on Thursday after supporters of SIMD-0228 failed to garner the supermajority they needed to implement the major economic change.

The surprise result delivered a blow to the Solana power brokers who rallied to replace Solana’s static inflation mechanics with a market-based system. Their proposal likely would have cut the network’s 4.7% annual staking rewards down to 1% or less.

In a contest that pitted Solana’s influential leaders and investors – who claim the network’s high staking rewards are bad for SOL’s price – against small-time operators who feared the effects of a big cut to their revenue, the opposition rallied hardest on Thursday, as late-voting validators’ ballots broke heavily in favor of «no.»

That was enough to scuttle the first major attempt at lowering Solana’s uncommonly high staking emissions rate. Among the most valuable programmable blockchains by market cap, Solana issues comparatively large sums of new tokens to its validators, the computer operations that power proof-of-stake blockchains.

Much like election night in the U.S., SIMD-0228’s weeklong political circus featured betting, ranting, data threads, chart-reading wonkery, endless social media debates and more than a bit of heated name-calling. One validator put their votes up for sale. Many others split their tickets.

It crescendoed with a dramatic rush of ballots cast by many of Solana’s 1300 validators. In the end, the opposition won an exceptionally high turnout election that laid bare the divide between big and small validators.

In the end, SIMD-0228 became the network’s first economic reform to fail at the polls.

Little stakers

Solana validators are only called upon to vote when the network is grappling with a major economic change, said Jonny, the operator of the Solana Compass validator.

SIMD-0228 is the third ever such vote to appear in records by StakingFacilities.com (the current proposal went up for consideration with an unrelated SIMD that passed). Its controversies sparked the highest turnout vote in the network’s history.

Over 66% of validators cast votes, according to a dashboard from Flipside Crypto. Together they wielded 75% of the network’s voting power, a remarkable share given voting in this decentralized system is voluntary.

Of participating validators with 500,000 SOL or less, over 60% voted against SIMD-0228, per a Dune dashboard. Larger validators saw the exact opposite: of validators with more than 500,000 SOL, 60% voted in favor.

The lopsided results suggest opponents’ warnings of economic ruin struck a nerve with small-time validators.

Big Stakes

Proponents of SIMD-0228 believe it would have solved Solana’s inflation problem, which they claim drags down SOL’s price. Their thinking goes like this: fewer tokens means fewer sellers, and fewer in the hands of tax collectors, too.

In place of the network’s static 4.7% SOL emissions that validators receive annually, they called for a dynamic system that adjusts to nudge staking trends up or down

Opponents, meanwhile, called the proposal reckless and rushed. Some told CoinDesk they suspected its co-author, the influential investment company Multicoin Capital, had written it to favor its own interests. Others publicly warned SIMD-0228 would disrupt elements of Solana’s DeFi economy, or turn off institutional investors who they claimed were attracted to SOL’s native yield.

Some doomsayers even claimed SIMD-0228 would chip away at Solana’s decentralization by forcing hundreds of validators with small SOL stakes offline, though others dispute the size of the blow.

Solana validators make money based on how much SOL they’ve staked, either from their own coffers or from tokens delegated to them by others. Those with smaller stakes are more acutely exposed to changes in emissions than those with bigger operators.

«Many people feel like SIMD-0228 is not the best proposal to address inflation on Solana,» said SolBlaze, a validator operator.

«SIMD-0228 is a significant economic change, and changes on this scale deserve more time to discuss, analyze data, and iterate with feedback from different sectors of the ecosystem.»

Reformists aren’t going to give up the fight, said Max Resnick, one of the proposal’s co-authors and an economic researcher at Anza Labs.

«We are gonna chat with the no’s and come to a compromise,» he said.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.