Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
0xdesigner
@0xdesigner
ironically leaving farcon more bearish on farcaster. the protocol wants to compete and win at the client level. clients want to win and avoid being dependent on the protocol. all roads lead to winner take all. what’s the point?
36 replies
3 recasts
93 reactions
🌮Tacos
@tacos
The part of this I’m trying to understand is the “clients want to win and avoid being dependent on the protocol”. That makes sense in the web2 world, but IIRC FC protocol is open and far less risky to build on. Can you give more detail on this aspect?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
0xdesigner
@0xdesigner
can a client ever be more valuable than the protocol? i think it can… when they fork the protocol…
3 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
🌮Tacos
@tacos
I could see that, but then they would be cut off from the entire FC connected ecosystem. If there wasn’t a vibrant and growing set of things to connect to, I would be worried, but at the current rate, that feels less likely (although I acknowledge the risk)
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
🌮Tacos
@tacos
Thought more about this and my mind goes to gmail. That client that is dominant, and could very well fork SMTP (GMTP?), but has not, bc it would lose all of the interop of the protocol. Does that example track?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
artlu
@artlu
study @drakula which has huge ambitions, and will likely never fork the protocol
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
