Provider at a glance
- Category
- SocialFi
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- towns.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 54 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Towns Protocol
Onchain group chat
SocialFi
#6 Overall
Ranked #6 of 8 SocialFi in the published ranking
54
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Towns Protocol right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- If this company shuts down tomorrow, is my handle and my follower list still mine?6/10 here; Farcaster scores 7
- Can I actually walk out with my audience — and is there anywhere to walk to?3/10 here; Farcaster scores 8
- Who takes a cut of what I earn here, and is the number actually written down?4/10 here; Zora scores 6
- Whose key can override mine — and what exactly can they do with it?3/10 here; Farcaster scores 5
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best SocialFi platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Towns Protocol cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Towns Protocol?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Towns Protocol
Compare all 4- 5Farcaster14 points above · stronger on exit path and somewhere to go (8 against 3)68
- 7Zora9 points below · stronger on earnings waterfall (6 against 4)45
- 8Paragraph13 points below · stronger on exit path and somewhere to go (4 against 3)41
For your setup
Find out if Towns Protocol fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Towns Protocol lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best SocialFi platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Towns Protocol ranks #6
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (13.5 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
326+6.146.510#5/8Loading evidence…
273+2.597.09#7/8Loading evidence…
254+3.205.59#7/8Loading evidence…
163+1.544.010#5/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−14behind Farcaster, #5
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 52–56 and stays #6
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Towns Protocol’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
If this company shuts down tomorrow, is my handle and my follower list still mine? 6 → 1 on its ladder · Zora passes it−544#6 → #7
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- If this company shuts down tomorrow, is my handle and my follower list still mine? — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Can I actually walk out with my audience — and is there anywhere to walk to? — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Who takes a cut of what I earn here, and is the number actually written down? — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Whose key can override mine — and what exactly can they do with it? — 3/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- YOU CANNOT LEAVE WITH YOUR PEOPLE — YOU CAN ONLY SELL THEM. Towns' exit story is a single sentence and it points the wrong way: 'Owners can sell their Space by simply transferring their NFT, effectively passing on all ownership privileges.' (https://docs.towns.com/towns-smart-contracts/space-ownership.md). There is no export, no migration and no data download anywhere in Towns' own complete docs index at https://docs.towns.com/llms.txt, and no second client that reads the same account is named — on 2026-09-28 https://www.towns.com linked to its own app, docs, explorer, governance, roadmap and GitHub pages and to social accounts, but to no other client. The reason is structural, not an oversight: the member streams that hold your handle, your conversation and your relationships are end-to-end encrypted to a node set that requires a DAO vote to join ('Operators, once registered and approved by the DAO , can run a Stream Node', https://docs.towns.com/node-operator/introduction.md), and 'No one besides the sending and entitled users, including Towns Node Operators, are able to decrypt and read any messages' (https://docs.towns.com/towns-messaging-protocol/overview.md). The same encryption that makes Towns the most private product in this pool is what makes your audience impossible to carry out of it. The token you can sell is the community; the community you cannot take.
Competitive position
Where Towns Protocol leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 814.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#6 / 810.1 of 30 · best 21.0
Friction#1 / 82.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Towns Protocol leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Can I actually walk out with my audience — and is there anywhere to walk to?#7 / 8
- Who takes a cut of what I earn here, and is the number actually written down?#7 / 8
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Zora#7 of 8 · score 45 · 9.0 points behind
Towns Protocol leads on
- If this company shuts down tomorrow, is my handle and my follower list still mine?6 vs 1
- Can I actually walk out with my audience — and is there anywhere to walk to?3 vs 2
Zora leads on
- Who takes a cut of what I earn here, and is the number actually written down?6 vs 4
Largest single reason Towns Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+8.6 display points).Scenario cost: Zora has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Paragraph#8 of 8 · score 41 · 13.0 points behind
Towns Protocol leads on
- If this company shuts down tomorrow, is my handle and my follower list still mine?6 vs 1
- Who takes a cut of what I earn here, and is the number actually written down?4 vs 1
- Whose key can override mine — and what exactly can they do with it?3 vs 2
Paragraph leads on
- Can I actually walk out with my audience — and is there anywhere to walk to?4 vs 3
Largest single reason Towns Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+14.0 display points).Scenario cost: Paragraph has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Farcaster#5 of 8 · score 68 · 14.0 points ahead
Towns Protocol leads onNo scored criterion
Farcaster leads on
- If this company shuts down tomorrow, is my handle and my follower list still mine?7 vs 6
- Can I actually walk out with my audience — and is there anywhere to walk to?8 vs 3
- Who takes a cut of what I earn here, and is the number actually written down?5 vs 4
Largest single reason Farcaster is ahead: published criteria (+14.0 display points).Scenario cost: Farcaster has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
82 vs 54 · gap 28.0Why Nostr ranks above Towns Protocol
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 28.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisNostrGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.121.0−28.3, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisNostrPoints
If this company shuts down tomorrow, is my handle and my follower list still mine? · w32610−4.10, worse
Can I actually walk out with my audience — and is there anywhere to walk to? · w2739−5.18, worse
Who takes a cut of what I earn here, and is the number actually written down? · w2546−1.60, worse
Whose key can override mine — and what exactly can they do with it? · w16310−3.58, worse
Net5482−28.0
Your scenario
Towns Protocol is not priced for this scenario
Marketplace fee on your volume for a year. Excludes network gas and any withdrawal fee. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 8 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
8 of 8 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 28 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #6 across every one-point re-run
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
If this company shuts down tomorrow, is my handle and my follower list still mine?strength 6 · weight 32Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Can I actually walk out with my audience — and is there anywhere to walk to?strength 3 · weight 27Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Who takes a cut of what I earn here, and is the number actually written down?strength 4 · weight 25Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Whose key can override mine — and what exactly can they do with it?strength 3 · weight 16Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Control failure (Towns Protocol 3/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Whose key can override mine — and what exactly can they do with it? · 16%
- Custody failure (Towns Protocol 6/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by If this company shuts down tomorrow, is my handle and my follower list still mine? · 32%
- Exit failure (Towns Protocol 3/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Can I actually walk out with my audience — and is there anywhere to walk to? · 27%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Information failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Who takes a cut of what I earn here, and is the number actually written down? (25%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- PUBLISHED, EXACTLY, FOR THE END USER - from https://
docs .towns .com /towns-smart-contracts /pricing-modules .md (HTTP 200, fetched 28 September 2026), default Dynamic Pricing Module: "The price logarithmically approaches $10 USD as membership reaches 1,000, and then again increases logarithmically to approach $100 USD as membership reaches 10,000." / "Membership prices never exceed $100 USD." / "The first 100 memberships are offered for free." / "Accepts ETH as payment."; Flat Fee module: "Sets a minimum price of $10 USD for a membership." Renewal, https:// docs .towns .com /towns-smart-contracts /space-membership .md (fetched 28 September 2026): "Memberships are initially defined with a 1 year expiry, while still allowing renewal at the original price that it was purchased rather than the current market price for a new membership." UNPUBLISHED, ON THE PAGE THAT SHOULD CARRY IT: the same pricing page still names the recipients without a single percentage - "A portion of the fees is allocated to the SpaceOwner, providing an incentive for maintaining and growing the Space.", a share to the River Eridanus Association, and "Referrers, if any, are also rewarded, encouraging community growth and engagement." - and now adds, also without a rate, "Upon implementation of they buy-and-burn function, the remaining fees will be contributed to the" Towns Lodge. It also states "Free Spaces do not incur protocol fees on membership transactions (joining or renewing)." and "Tipping within any space (free or paid) incurs a separate protocol fee on member tips, while bot tips have no protocol fee." with no rate. The aggregate protocol take is not published but is readable: eth_call SpaceFactory 0x9978c826d93883701522d2CA645d5436e5654252 on Base at block 51,916,631 (28 September 2026): getMembershipBps() = 1000 (basis points, i.e. one tenth), getMembershipFee() = 500000000000000 wei (0.0005 ETH), getMembershipMinPrice() = 1000000000000000 wei (0.001 ETH), all unchanged from August.Towns Protocol — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDTowns Protocol — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Base, Towns Chain, Ethereum, Optimism, Polygon, Arbitrum
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- STANDARD OFAC/SANCTIONS REPRESENTATION, NOT A REGIONAL FOOTPRINT. https://
www .towns .com /towns-protocol-terms-of-service .pdf (Last Updated Date: Wed 16 April 2025; downloaded HTTP 200 and text-extracted on 17 August 2026) contains only the eligibility rule every crypto ToS carries: 'River does not encourage, induce, or sanction the deployment, integration, or use of the Site in violation of applicable laws or regulations and hereby prohibits any such deployment, integration or use. This includes use of the Site by you (a) in violation of export control or sanctions laws of the United States or any other applicable jurisdiction, (b) if you are located in or ordinarily resident in a country or territory subject to comprehensive sanctions administered by OFAC, or (c) if you are or are working on behalf of a Specially Designated National ("SDN") or a person subject to similar blocking or denied party prohibitions.' There is NO market-by-market restriction, no country allow-list, and no geo-blocked-jurisdiction schedule anywhere in the 8-page document. The only other geographic text is boilerplate consumer disclosure ('If you are a California resident, you may report complaints to the Complaint Assistance Unit...') and a Delaware forum clause; the operating entity is Swiss ('(c) River Eridanus Association, Switzerland, 2026', www.towns.com footer, read 17 August 2026). Classified global.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Towns Protocol: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
9 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 54, #6 of 8. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt socialfi:towns_protocol:2026.10.18:4f61424dedef
Are you Towns Protocol? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.