Last Updated: 19.06.2026
When it comes to comparison with LeafPlaza, there are 3 names you are probably interested on: Bluesky, W Social, and Eurosky. We all sit somewhere around the AT Protocol, but we all differ in ownership, transparency, infrastructure, and funding. We believe sovereignty is more than a slogan, but a set of properties that can be checked.
We publish this because European users deserve factual benchmarks, not marketing language or grey data. If you encounter any error, please contact us at info@leafplaza.eu or @leafplaza.eu in the Atmosphere.
In a nutshell
Bluesky is the technical reference, not the sovereignty reference.
It is the main AT Protocol app, with clear public docs on protocol behavior and decentralization. But it is still a US company with a US ownership structure.
LeafPlaza is the transparency reference.
Ownership, monetization, hosting, DNS, and email are all public and aligned with European/EFTA providers. That makes our sovereignty story easy to check.
Eurosky is strongest at the PDS layer and ownership layers, weaker at the control plane.
Public verifiable non-profit with genuine European infrastructure just as LeafPlaza. However, DNS authority and email are important dependencies still on Cloudflare and Google.
W Social is the least auditable of the four.
Its public presentation is ambitious and polished, but it leaves the most important questions least answered: who owns it, where the infrastructure is, and how the stack is built. Early looks also found concerning signals in the authentication and ID validation part.
Methodology
For this comparison, we use publicly verifiable information from official pages, public registries, published privacy polities, and DNS records. For LeafPlaza, we rely on our own public disclosures and our DNS info available online. For W Social, we use its public launch presentation and public commentary that has examined its claims and structure. For Eurosky, we rely on its public pages plus DNS info available online. For Bluesky, we rely on Bluesky's own terms, privacy, and public reporting of ownership.
Terminology:
- “Website hosting” means where the public site is hosted.
- “PDS hosting” means where the AT Protocol personal data server runs.
- “DNS authority” means which nameservers control the domain.
- “Email infrastructure” means the MX and SPF path used for mail.
- “Publicly verifiable” means a third party can inspect the claim from public sources.
We update this page when material facts change or we receive factual information that needs correction in our document.
At a glance
| Bluesky | LeafPlaza | W Social | Eurosky | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core model | Main AT Protocol app | Social ecosystem built on FOSS + AT Protocol | European social network / public square narrative | European AT Protocol infrastructure / PDS provider |
| Main claim | Open, portable social network | Transparent, verifiable sovereignty | Sovereignty + trust narrative | Sovereign infrastructure with non-profit framing |
| Public ownership | US public benefit corporation; publicly reported majority ownership by Jay Graber | Two named European founders; public registry | “80 Europeans” claimed, investors not named | Public & verifiable non-profit structure |
| Public stack disclosure | Strong protocol-level disclosure | Strong and explicit | Limited / closed | Publicly described |
| Public infra disclosure | Public service docs, but not a sovereign Europe claim | Strong and specific | Limited | Mixed; PDS host European with non-European dependencies (DNS/email) |
Ownership and governance
| Bluesky | LeafPlaza | W Social | Eurosky | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal entity | Bluesky Social PBC, US public benefit corporation | LeafPlaza OÜ, Estonia | W Social AB, Sweden | Stichting Modal, Netherlands |
| Ownership structure | Predominantly owned by Jay Graber, with outside investors | Two named European founders; public documents available | “80 Europeans from 10 countries” mentioned, investors not individually disclosed | Foundation / non-profit structure |
| Investor disclosure | Partial, but not a transparency-first user-owned model | No investors | Investors not named | No commercial investors |
| Governance style | US PBC governance | Founder-controlled, no outside voting rights | Opaque at the ownership layer | Non-profit governance |
| Verifiability | Medium | High | Medium | High |
Bluesky is not trying to be a European sovereignty project. However, it matters because it sets the baseline: it is an open protocol product with a US corporate structure. LeafPlaza’s advantage is not that it imitates Bluesky; it is that it takes the same open protocol idea and wraps it in a fully public European ownership and infrastructure.
Infrastructure
| Bluesky | LeafPlaza | W Social | Eurosky | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main website hosting | Not the focus of the product docs | Infomaniak (Switzerland, EFTA) | UpCloud, (Finland, EU) | IONOS (Germany, EU) |
| Social data / PDS hosting | Distributed across PDSes; data portability emphasized | Hostinger (Germany, EU) | Not publicly disclosed | Hetzner, (Germany, EU) |
| DNS authority | Not central to the product docs | Infomaniak nameservers (Switzerland, EFTA) | Bunny.net nameservers (Slovenia, EU) | Cloudflare nameservers (United States) |
| Email infrastructure | Account/notification infrastructure not framed as a sovereignty claim | Infomaniak (Switzerland, EFTA) | Proton (Switzerland, EFTA) | Google (United States) and Mailjet (France, EU) |
| DNSSEC | Not disclosed | Enabled | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| US-headquartered dependencies | Yes, as a US company | None | Not disclosed | Cloudflare + Google |
| Verifiability | High for protocol and product, lower for sovereignty claims | High | Low | High |
Bluesky’s architecture is intentionally portable and decentralized at the protocol layer. Its own docs stress that users can migrate and that complete deletion across the network is not always possible because the protocol is decentralized. That makes it a useful reference for interoperability, but not a European sovereignty benchmark.
LeafPlaza's control plane is publicly visible and European/EFTA-based end to end. W Social remains the least auditable. Eurosky is mixed: strong on data hosting, weaker on DNS/email control.
Technology stack
| Bluesky | LeafPlaza | W Social | Eurosky | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protocol | AT Protocol | AT Protocol | AT Protocol | AT Protocol |
| App code | Publicly developed client + protocol ecosystem | FOSS-based, with minor modifications from ATP & Bluesky open-source code | Closed / not publicly auditable | Open-source oriented |
| Stack transparency | Strong | Strong | Limited | Strong |
| Third-party dependencies | Not the product’s sovereignty claim | Disclosed, with planned replacement work | Not publicly disclosed | Not fully disclosed |
| Ability to inspect | High | High | Low | High |
Bluesky gives the upstream technical pattern. LeafPlaza takes that pattern and turns it into a transparency first European implementation. That is the fundamental contrast: Bluesky is the protocol native reference, while LeafPlaza is the sovereignty-native version.
Business model
| Bluesky | LeafPlaza | W Social | Eurosky | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue model | Not central in the protocol docs; product/platform company | User subscriptions only | Advertising + micropayments planned | Non-profit / public-interest model |
| Ads | Not the core public pitch | No | Yes, planned | No |
| Data monetisation | Not the core public pitch | No | Not publicly detailed | No |
| Investor dependence | Yes, US company with outside investors | None | Yes, opaque investor structure | None stated |
| Sustainability approach | Platform growth and investment-backed scaling | Founder-funded first, now community-funded. | For-profit platform model | Grants / non-profit alignment |
This is where LeafPlaza becomes materially different from both Bluesky and W Social. Bluesky is a strong technical reference, but it is still a VC-backed US company. W Social plans ads and micropayments. Eurosky avoids commercial investor pressure by being a non-profit. LeafPlaza chooses a simpler route: subscription-funded, no ads, no investor dependency.
Human verification and moderation
| Bluesky | LeafPlaza | W Social | Eurosky | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human verification | No mandatory ID for posting as a core principle | Human verification based on the subscription payment. | Yes, identity verification for participation with concerning technical and legal decisions | Not a core public claim |
| Read-only access | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Bot strategy | Labels, moderation, protocol tools | Allowed if beneficial, useful, and always with a human behind them. | Human verification app and restricted participation | Protocol-level approach |
| Transparency of moderation | Publicly documented | Publicly documented | Partially public | Partially public |
Bluesky and LeafPlaza are closer here than either is to W Social. The difference is that LeafPlaza combines open protocol compatibility with a European trust story. W Social is trying to solve bot abuse with stronger identity controls. That may appeal to some users, but it is a different trade-off and not the one LeafPlaza is making.
Why this page exists
We are not publishing this to attack competitors. We are publishing it because “European” should mean something measurable.
If a platform claims sovereignty, it should be able to show:
- Who owns it.
- Where it runs.
- What it is built on.
- Who controls the domain.
- How it makes money.
- What it still cannot prove.
LeafPlaza is not perfect, but we are comfortable being measured by that standard because we publish our limitations alongside our strengths. With your support, we will continue building our strength.
Sources and updates
This page is based on:
- Bluesky’s terms, privacy and data documentation, and public ownership reporting.
- LeafPlaza public privacy policy and website disclosures.
- W Social launch presentation and public commentary.
- Eurosky public site and privacy pages
- DNS records publicly available online
If you believe a claim here is outdated or incomplete, contact info@leafplaza.eu. We will update the page when the facts change.
Changelog
This page is a living document. When anything material changes — provider, ownership, stack, known issues — we update it here and note the change.