The protocol is not dead; the operation is reborn: Lens and Farcaster complete a key "handover"

Written by: Yangz, Techub News

If the previous cycle was a blueprint competition for decentralized social “Protocol Utopia,” then these two announcements at the beginning of 2026 mark a “handover” from builders to operators.

On January 20th, Mask Network announced it became the “new steward” of Lens Protocol, stating “the next phase is not more protocols, but the creation of truly user-friendly products.” Today, Farcaster co-founder Dan Romero published an honest long article announcing the project has been handed over to Neynar, an important infrastructure provider within the ecosystem, with a clear reason: “After five years, it’s obvious that Farcaster needs new approaches and leadership to realize its full potential.”

In just two days, the succession of two major mainstream protocols in the decentralized social track sketches a clear industry turning point: when a robust technical architecture cools off amid sluggish user growth, a transformation from “protocol supremacy” to “product survival” has become an unavoidable collective challenge for the entire sector. Of course, this is not an ideal disillusionment but a necessary process of “grounding.”

“Handing over”: from builder to operator

These two “handover” events appear to be management transfers on the surface, but internally reveal two clear pathways to break the deadlock, pointing to the inevitable division of labor.

Handing Lens to Mask Network is an injection of “productization” capability aimed at the mainstream market. As Mask Network emphasized in its official announcement: “Over the past decade, the Mask team has been building a Web2→Web3 bridge, operating Mastodon instances, and learning the true requirements of large-scale decentralized social network operation.” This is not an empty claim. According to Rootdata, Mask has already built a relatively complete product matrix: from the underlying identity aggregation protocol Next.ID, to the user identity recognition portal Web3.Bio, and to consumer-facing social aggregation app Firefly. This series of layouts indicates that Mask’s role has long surpassed that of a mere product developer, resembling a “system operator” well-versed in user growth and ecosystem management.

The Aave team, as an outstanding “protocol architect,” has laid down the “open, permissionless infrastructure rails” for Lens. But when the train needs to carry passengers toward distant destinations, what is needed is a “conductor” skilled in scheduling, service, and experience. Mask’s mission declaration—“making decentralized social accessible, intuitive, and ready for everyday users”—precisely embodies this shift from “product thinking” to “user thinking.”

In contrast, Farcaster’s choice to hand over to Neynar is more like a natural extension of its ecosystem gene and a strategic infrastructure trust. The essence of this handover can be glimpsed from Dan Romero’s statement—he emphasized that Neynar’s CEO Rish and CTO Manan “have been building on Farcaster from the very beginning.” As one of the earliest Farcaster clients, Neynar’s infrastructure already supports “most of the developer ecosystem.” This is not just a business acquisition but an internal inheritance of technical routes and ecosystem governance. Notably, Farcaster founders Dan Romero and Varun Srinivasan are among Neynar’s early supporters, forming a closed loop from protocol creators to ecosystem builders.

This background makes Neynar essentially the most core “enabler” within the Farcaster ecosystem. When the protocol’s consumer-facing client growth hits a bottleneck, a more pragmatic path may be to shift to the B-side—by consolidating and expanding the developer ecosystem, providing robust data APIs and infrastructure services for third-party applications, thus building a “growth flywheel driven by ecosystem prosperity and protocol value.” It’s like entrusting a city’s future to the infrastructure operators most familiar with its underground pipelines and traffic networks. They may not serve every citizen directly but determine whether the city can breathe smoothly and grow organically.

“Handover” is not retreat but a deepening of strategy. When the founding team completes protocol innovation from 0 to 1, demonstrating technical feasibility, the next step from 1 to 10—ecosystem prosperity—requires more professional and focused product operation and ecosystem development capabilities. This handover can be seen as a necessary rite of passage for these two major decentralized social protocols from adolescence to adulthood.

Market reaction: when “handover” is misinterpreted as “end”

When news of Lens and Farcaster successively changing “stewards” spread, a natural and direct inference began to circulate in the market: has the experiment of decentralized social already come to an end?

This reaction is almost instinctive in the current market environment. After several rounds of protocol innovation and conceptual hype, the decentralized social field has yet to deliver a convincing “mainstream adoption” report card. User growth curves are flat, and breakout products are few. Therefore, when two flagship protocols undergo significant management transfers simultaneously, it’s easy for outsiders to interpret it as the founders’ “exit” and the retreat of idealism, leading to a pessimistic conclusion that “this path may be blocked.”

However, this surface-level “end” conclusion may misunderstand the essence of decentralized protocols and the deeper meaning of this “handover.” Amid these doubts, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin announced: “In 2026, we plan to fully return to decentralized social.” Meanwhile, seasoned investor and Union Square Ventures co-founder Fred Wilson explicitly stated: “Protocols will not easily disappear. They are highly resilient.”

Summary

Vitalik, when explaining why to return to decentralized social, offered a calm critique of the past few years’ development: “Crypto social projects often go astray. We often think that just inserting a speculative token is ‘innovation’ and advances the world.” Yes, over the past few years, too many Socialfi projects have been overly obsessed with the financialization narrative of “Fi,” forgetting the true nature of “Social” as a social product.

The transition from “protocol blueprint” to “product reality” is a necessary process of disillusionment and a rebirth focused on real needs. When the halo fades, pragmatic progress is the only way for decentralized social to truly move out of the lab and into the everyday human connection. The rails are already laid, and the deeper significance of these two “handovers” lies precisely in entrusting the train’s steering to those who “deeply believe in the essence of social.”