I think there’s a small trap in the premise.
We keep trying to think in terms of demographics to target, as if Nostr just needs to find the “right tribe” — ideological devs, political dissidents, conspiracy researchers, rebellious entrepreneurs. But most living technologies don’t grow that way. They grow when they become useful to someone in a simple, concrete way.
The devs who talked about decentralization and then happily moved to Bluesky don’t surprise me much. In many cases it was never really a technical position — it was a social one. When the social pressure shifts, they shift with it. It happens all the time. It’s probably not worth building strategy around people who follow the wind.
At the same time, I don’t think it’s absurd at all to think about florists, musicians, biologists, or even milkshake producers. In a strange way they’re actually more interesting than ideological devs — because they don’t care about the ideology. If a tool lets them talk to their customers, their community, or a handful of trusted peers without being at the mercy of a platform, they’ll use it. That’s enough.
People don’t adopt protocols because they love protocols.
They adopt them because they solve a small but real problem.
That’s why the direction of groups, niches, topic-based or semi-closed relays feels much more fertile than any kind of cultural battle. Small spaces where people recognize each other: a circle of local musicians, a research community, an art collective, a group of friends. If it works there, it slowly takes root.
The big names — Webb, Corbett, and others in that sphere — can bring attention, but attention rarely builds ecosystems. Ecosystems are built by small communities that stay.
So yes, there’s nothing wrong with exploring multiple directions at once. But if I had to bet on one path, it wouldn’t be an ideological tribe.
It would be something much simpler:
small groups of people who find a place to talk to each other… and eventually realize that the place doesn’t belong to anyone.