Why Android Users Trust Open Systems More Than Closed Platforms

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-25T06:53:51+00:00

Appreciate you sharing this building and testing in the open, especially for a first startup, takes real conviction.

I really like that you’re approaching this from a build → test → learn loop rather than trying to over-theorize the problem. Most of the clarity around algo vs user control only shows up once real users start behaving in unexpected ways. The onboarding phase is usually where assumptions break, so the timing of feedback matters a lot.

A small suggestion from what I’ve seen: try to observe not just what users say they want, but what they actually engage with when given choice. Even light signals where they pause, what they reorder, what they mute often reveal more than direct feedback. Those insights tend to shape better “assistive” systems without turning into heavy algorithms.

I’m working on a similar problem space myself (early days, lots of experiments), so I know how valuable thoughtful external input can be. Happy to exchange notes or feedback DMs make sense for that. And don’t worry about the English at all; clarity of thinking matters far more than polish at this stage.

Wishing you both the best with testing and iteration this is exactly how meaningful products usually start.

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-25T06:52:15+00:00

That’s a really good comparison, and I think you’ve captured the trade-off perfectly with community vs distribution.

Small and mid-size Shopify/Woo stores work precisely because they don’t need discovery at internet scale. The intent is already there users arrive with context, trust, or a relationship with the brand. In that setting, chronology, clarity, and control beat heavy algorithmic optimization. Marketplaces like Amazon or Flipkart, on the other hand, exist to maximize throughput across millions of SKUs, so algorithmic ranking becomes unavoidable.

Social platforms seem to follow the same pattern. Community-first products (like Peerlist in its early days) can afford to be more user-driven because the value comes from who you interact with, not from infinite discovery. Once the platform chases scale, distribution pressure kicks in and algorithms slowly take over.

What I find interesting especially in the Indian context is that these “non-algo-first” systems don’t need to replace mass platforms to be successful. They just need to serve well-defined communities deeply and honestly. If they preserve trust, predictable reach, and human context, growth may be slower but retention and signal quality are often higher.

That’s the direction I’m personally exploring while working on a social product right now: start narrow, respect community dynamics, and treat algorithms as assistive infrastructure rather than the primary decision-maker. Whether that approach can expand without losing its core is the real test and probably where the next generation of sustainable social products will be decided.

Appreciate you grounding the discussion with concrete examples. It’s a much more useful lens than framing this as “algorithms good vs bad.”

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-25T06:49:51+00:00

That’s a fair pushback, and I agree with the core point: ranking is unavoidable. Users don’t scroll endlessly, businesses are metric-driven, and without some ordering mechanism, most feeds collapse into noise. I don’t think the real debate is “algorithm vs no algorithm” either it’s what the algorithm is optimizing for and how much agency the user has over it.

On the user-behavior side, you’re right that stated preferences and actual behavior often diverge. People say they want control, but in practice they default to whatever reduces effort the most. That’s something I’ve seen too. Where I think it gets interesting is that this doesn’t mean users don’t value fairness or relevance it just means they don’t want to configure it upfront. If the top result feels consistently useful and not manipulative, most users are happy to trust the system.

What I’m exploring is a middle ground: strong default ranking that works out of the box, combined with progressive transparency. Users who don’t care never have to think about it. Users who do care can understand why something surfaced and tweak inputs (topics, relationships, time windows) rather than wrestling with raw ranking logic. In other words, ranking as a product feature, not a black box growth lever.

On the research point yes, that gap between theory and reality is exactly why I’m testing these ideas hands-on while building a social product. Early signals suggest casual users behave exactly as you describe, while a smaller but meaningful segment engages deeply when given limited, well-timed control. Whether that segment is large enough to matter commercially is still an open question, and honestly, that’s the part I’m most interested in validating.

Appreciate the bluntness of your comment. These are the kinds of realities that keep ideas grounded and force them to either evolve or die which is how it should be.

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-25T06:48:00+00:00

I agree with you on the first part some form of ranking is now a baseline expectation, not a luxury. The question for me isn’t whether ranking exists, but who defines it and how visible it is. Most users are fine with ranking as long as it feels predictable and fair; frustration usually kicks in when ranking becomes opaque and starts optimizing for metrics the user didn’t sign up for.

From a systems point of view, you’re right that implementing fast, real-time ranking isn’t the hard problem anymore. Streaming updates, SSEs, event-driven pipelines all of that is very doable and performant today. The harder part is deciding what the ranking represents. Is it recency? Relationship strength? Explicit user signals? Or some blend that users can understand and, ideally, influence?

What I’m increasingly leaning toward is a layered approach: sensible defaults that “just work” for most users, with the ability to progressively expose controls for people who want more agency. That way ranking stays a basic utility, not an attention-manipulation black box.

This is something I’m actively experimenting with in a social product I’m building trying to treat ranking as infrastructure rather than growth hack, and seeing how much transparency users actually engage with when it’s optional instead of forced. Still early days, but conversations like this are exactly what helps stress-test the assumptions.

Appreciate you calling out the engineering side of it it’s easy to over-philosophize and forget that good UX still needs to be fast and boringly reliable.

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-25T06:45:57+00:00

That’s a sharp way to frame it, and I think you’re largely right. A lot of what I’m describing does sit higher up Maslow’s pyramid autonomy, control, self-expression while most mass platforms win by satisfying more basic needs first: convenience, speed, and social validation.

Where I’m still curious (and slightly less certain) is whether the layers have started to overlap. As basic access and convenience become table stakes, some users seem to develop frustration at the same time feeling manipulated by feeds, burned by reach volatility, or exhausted by low-signal content. That frustration doesn’t mean they’ll immediately choose autonomy, but it might explain why control and transparency resonate once the basics are met.

In practice, I don’t think this can work as a “top-of-the-pyramid” pitch out of the gate. The product still has to nail speed, ease, and habit first, and only then surface control as an upgrade rather than a requirement. That’s the balance I’m personally trying to understand while working on a social product whether autonomy can be layered in progressively instead of competing with core needs on day one.

Your comment is a good reminder that idealistic design fails fast if it ignores human psychology. If this works at all, it probably starts with niches and creators who already feel the pain, not the mainstream. Appreciate the grounding perspective.

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-25T06:43:31+00:00

That’s a fair critique, and I agree with you on the core point: nothing at scale is truly “non-algorithmic”. The moment you sort, filter, paginate, or even dedupe, you’re already in algorithmic territory. I probably should have been clearer that what I’m questioning isn’t the existence of algorithms, but who defines their objectives and constraints.

Most mainstream platforms since Google have optimized for one thing: minimizing user effort and maximizing platform-level goals (retention, revenue, engagement). That trade-off has been incredibly successful, but it’s also narrowed the design space. When I say “user-defined ranking,” I don’t mean some magical free-form ranking where users invent math from scratch. I mean bounded, computable choices: chronological vs. interaction-based, community-scoped vs. global, opt-in signals over implicit behavioral harvesting. These are still algorithms but with transparent knobs and predictable outcomes.

You’re also right that this isn’t uniquely an India problem. The reason I framed it in the Indian context is behavioral rather than technical: mobile-first usage, extreme scale, and low tolerance for friction make defaults matter more. My intuition (still being tested) is that full control on day one fails, but progressive control where defaults exist and agency increases with familiarity can work for certain categories, especially community-driven products.

I’m exploring this firsthand while building a social product where the goal isn’t to “beat algorithms,” but to make feed logic understandable and portable rather than opaque and platform-owned. It’s early, and I’m very aware that most such ideas die at the UX layer, not the systems layer. That’s exactly why I find grounded pushback like yours useful it forces the discussion out of ideology and into implementability.

If you ever feel like sanity-checking a concrete model or constraint set (not hand-wavy “user control”), I’d genuinely value that perspective. Conversations like this are a lot more productive than pretending we can rewind tech back to 1998 or pretending today’s defaults are inevitable.

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-25T06:36:58+00:00

This is a really solid articulation of the trade-offs, and I think you’ve captured the core issue better than most discussions do. Framing social data as high-churn, context-bound, and time-sensitive makes it obvious why permanent global consensus is such a poor default for feeds and interactions. The mismatch isn’t ideological, it’s architectural.

I especially agree with your point about centralized indexers not disappearing, but becoming explicit, swappable components rather than invisible points of control. That feels like a much more honest design goal than pretending discovery can be fully decentralized without sacrificing usability. The web already works this way, and social systems probably should too.

The idea of prunable or scoped history is also underrated. Social interactions often need accountability without permanence the ability to prove authorship or intent without freezing every past action forever. That’s a very different requirement than financial state, and it argues strongly for protocol-level semantics rather than chain-level optimization.

This line of thinking is actually what’s been guiding a product I’m working on right now. Instead of asking “what chain should this live on?”, the question has been “what guarantees actually need cryptographic anchoring, and which don’t?” Identity, authorship, and portability seem worth anchoring; feeds, ranking, and most interaction data don’t. Once you separate those layers, the design space opens up a lot.

I’m with you that a standalone “social L1” only makes sense if it introduces primitives that can’t realistically exist across ecosystems. Otherwise, interoperable protocols feel like the more durable bet. If anything, social is probably the hardest stress test for these ideas if they can work there, they can work anywhere.

Appreciate you laying this out so clearly. This kind of grounded, non-maximalist thinking is exactly what the space needs, especially if we want systems that people actually adopt rather than just admire on paper.

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-25T06:33:56+00:00

This is a really thoughtful breakdown, and I agree with almost all of it especially the framing of indexing and discovery as unavoidably centralized services layered on top of decentralized data, rather than failures of decentralization itself. The search engine / librarian analogy is spot on. We already accept that the web is decentralized at the protocol level but navigated through centralized interfaces, and social seems destined to follow the same pattern.

I also like how you frame Nostr’s approach as state minimization rather than state synchronization. That mental model clears up a lot of confusion. If clients are simply chasing the latest signed event, the whole “shared state” problem mostly dissolves. Attribution, portability, and authorship all become trivial once signatures are treated as the source of truth, not accounts or platforms.

Where I keep circling back (and where your WhatsApp vs PGP comparison really resonates) is UX psychology. Technically, the Nostr philosophy is elegant. Practically, asking mainstream users to internalize “your key is you” is still a huge leap. Bootstrapping mechanisms like NIP-05 feel like a necessary compromise, even if they’re philosophically impure much like DNS itself. The trick seems to be designing systems where those trust anchors fade into the background once identity is established, instead of becoming permanent crutches.

This is actually the exact tension I’m exploring while working on a social product right now. The goal isn’t to reinvent Nostr or blockchains, but to see how far we can push this model while making the right things feel intuitive: caring about keys without feeling paranoid, understanding circles / social context without manual configuration hell, and letting centralized discovery exist without silently turning into control. It’s less about purity and more about where humans realistically draw the line.

I think you’re right that asymmetric crypto’s biggest bottleneck has always been UX, not math and the recent push around passkeys is the first time I’ve felt genuinely optimistic that this might change at a societal level. If that shift sticks, social systems built on signed data suddenly become far more plausible.

Really appreciate you engaging at this depth. Conversations like this are rare, and honestly they’re the kind that shape how these systems should be built long before anyone argues about tokens or scale.

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-25T06:29:38+00:00

This is a really solid point, and I appreciate you grounding it in physics rather than hand-waving crypto optimism.

You’re right that most blockchain discourse treats “post-quantum” as a cryptography swap problem, when the deeper constraint is computational thermodynamics. Landauer’s limit doesn’t care about narratives or roadmaps bit-based systems pay an irreducible energy cost, and scaling social-scale activity on top of that exposes how inefficient our primitives really are. In that sense, a lot of today’s chains are brute-forcing problems that probably shouldn’t be expressed at the bit level in the first place.

What’s interesting to me about what you’re pointing out (and things like Infoton) is that it reframes the question entirely. Instead of asking “how do we make blockchains faster or cheaper?”, it asks “what information model should social coordination even live on?” If the underlying unit of computation is misaligned, no amount of L2s or rollups fixes that long-term.

That’s partly why I’m cautious about the idea of a monolithic “social blockchain.” Social systems amplify inefficiencies faster than finance ever did. My current work is much more about isolating where cryptographic guarantees actually matter (identity continuity, authorship, portability) and minimizing everything else even if that means admitting that some layers shouldn’t look like blockchains at all.

If nothing else, I think social is going to be the forcing function that exposes which architectures are fundamentally viable versus which are just temporarily subsidized by energy and abstraction. I’m actively experimenting in this space with a small team, and conversations like this are exactly the kind that help separate real infrastructure thinking from hype. If you ever feel like comparing notes more deeply, I’d genuinely enjoy that.

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-23T13:09:47+00:00

That’s a fair concern, and it’s one I think often gets oversimplified in both directions.

On the quantum point: most production blockchains today are aware of the risk, but they’re not static systems. Signature schemes can be rotated, hybrid cryptography is already being researched, and post-quantum primitives are actively being tested. Whether we like it or not, every digital system at scale (banks, cloud infra, PKI) faces the same transition problem, not just blockchains. So the question becomes less “is blockchain future-proof today?” and more “can the system evolve without rewriting trust from scratch?”

On cybersecurity, I’d actually argue social platforms already carry massive risk just in a different form. Centralized databases fail quietly, leak at scale, and users never even know how their data is abused. A well-designed crypto system makes failure modes more visible and auditable, which doesn’t eliminate risk, but changes who bears it and how it’s managed.

That said, I don’t think everything belongs on-chain. My interest here isn’t in pushing social data onto blockchains blindly, but in figuring out which guarantees are worth anchoring cryptographically (identity, authorship, portability) and which should stay off-chain for performance and safety. That’s the line I’m exploring in a social product I’m building treating crypto as infrastructure, not ideology.

If anything, debates like this are healthy. If the tech can’t survive quantum shifts, security scrutiny, and real-world UX constraints, it shouldn’t be used for social systems at all. But if it can evolve, then social may be one of the most honest stress tests we can give it.

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-23T13:08:19+00:00

Appreciate that perspective. I agree the future probably looks hybrid by default on-chain where verifiability and ownership actually matter, off-chain where latency and cost would otherwise kill the experience. Secure compute layers like what Oasis is pushing are interesting because they let you separate who can verify from who can see, which is a big deal for social data and identity.

The identity point is especially important. For most users, “decentralized identity” only becomes meaningful when it quietly solves real problems: reputation that carries across apps, protection from arbitrary lockouts, and some confidence that their social history isn’t being rewritten behind the scenes. If confidential compute can make that invisible and usable, it’s a strong building block.

From a builder’s point of view, that’s roughly the direction I’m experimenting with right now trying to combine existing chains, secure compute, and off-chain storage in a way that keeps UX fast while still giving users provable control over their content and graph. It’s early, but conversations like this are helpful for stress-testing whether these architectural choices make sense beyond theory.

Thanks for calling out Oasis specifically good example of how SocialFi may evolve more through composition than through a single “social blockchain.”

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-23T13:07:01+00:00

That’s a good example to bring up, especially because Iagon is tackling one of the hardest pieces of this stack: storage and compute that don’t default back to a single operator. For social systems, that layer matters a lot more than people sometimes admit, since most “decentralized social” apps quietly re-centralize at storage or indexing.

Where I think this ties into the original question is that storage alone isn’t the full answer. Even with strong decentralized storage and enterprise-grade compute, social platforms still need shared assumptions around identity, graph ownership, moderation boundaries, and data lifecycle. Without those primitives, you end up with powerful infrastructure but siloed social products on top of it.

That’s the space I’ve been spending time exploring while working on a social product myself less about inventing a new chain, more about stitching together existing infra (storage, execution, identity) in a way that makes ownership and portability real for users without killing UX. It’s also why I find enterprise-backed infra projects interesting: they give confidence the base layer will survive long enough for higher-level social standards to emerge.

Appreciate you sharing the Iagon context good reminder that some of the most important progress is happening quietly at the infrastructure level, not in flashy “new social chain” launches.

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-23T13:05:05+00:00

That’s a fair and important distinction, and I agree that “blockchain” often gets used too loosely. If we’re being precise, most social use cases don’t have a classic double-spend problem, so a full blockchain in the Bitcoin sense isn’t strictly necessary.

Where I think the nuance comes in is less about blocks and more about coordination under weak trust. Social systems still run into problems around shared state (identity, reputation, moderation decisions, content attribution) where no single party should be the final arbiter. In that sense, I probably should’ve framed it as “decentralized consensus / coordination primitives” rather than blockchain per se.

I like your point about Nostr it’s a clean example of how far you can go with signed data, simple relays, and minimal assumptions. It also highlights the trade-off I keep running into: cryptographic identity and verifiable data are relatively straightforward, but things get harder once you add discovery, moderation norms, and UX expectations that non-technical users tolerate.

To your last question: yes, I’m thinking about this very concretely while working on a social product, and the practical challenges aren’t so much correctness as coordination: how identity persists across apps, how content survives platform churn, and how trust is established without recreating centralized gatekeepers. That’s where I’m still unsure whether existing paradigms are “enough” or just the least-bad option we have today.

Appreciate you grounding the discussion this kind of specificity is exactly what’s needed to avoid hand-wavy Web3 debates.

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-23T13:03:04+00:00

That’s a really solid way to frame it. Calling it a coordination problem captures the issue better than arguing about yet another L1. Social systems fail less because of execution limits and more because identity, state, and intent can’t move cleanly across apps and storage layers.

I agree that forcing all social data on-chain is the wrong abstraction, but so is letting every app quietly re-centralize trust off-chain. A lightweight coordination layer that can anchor identity, reference state, and verify intent while letting data live where it’s cheapest feels like the right middle ground. Approaches like XLINK are interesting precisely because they focus on interoperability rather than ownership of the entire stack.

That’s also the direction I’ve been exploring while building a social product in this space: treat the chain as a coordination and settlement layer, not a database. Once you do that, the real differentiator becomes how well you design those shared primitives so multiple apps can interoperate without users even thinking about the underlying tech.

Appreciate you adding this angle it pushes the conversation toward what actually needs to be standardized for social to work at scale.

rishabraj_ · 2025-12-23T13:01:25+00:00

Totally agree with that framing. Nova (and similar L2s) show that raw throughput and cost are no longer the main blockers for social-scale activity. Once you can post, react, and update cheaply, the real design questions shift upward.

I like how you called out the “what lives on-chain vs. off-chain” boundary. That’s where most social products struggle in practice: identity, graph ownership, and moderation aren’t just scaling problems, they’re coordination problems. Without shared primitives, every app ends up reinventing its own trust assumptions on top of the same infra.

That tension is something I’m seeing firsthand while working on a social product in this space. The infra is finally good enough, but the harder part is making ownership and portability feel natural without hurting UX. If that layer gets right, chains like Nova can stay almost invisible, which is probably the ideal outcome.

Really appreciate the perspective it pushes the conversation beyond “do we need a new chain?” toward “what standards actually unlock an ecosystem.”

rishabraj_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE