David Furlong
@df
One of the consequences of this is that platforms have an incentive to make things not be interoperable with other platforms, as it's their competitive advantage. Builders who choose a single wallet-chain ecosystem will get more distribution, support, funding & even possibly preferential tx execution than builders who choose to try to go multi platform. We saw glimpses of this with web3 social. The social apps that aggregated rather than betting one protocol were both less liked by the tribal users of individual protocols, and also less promoted by the protocols themselves. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out, as OP and ZkSync have incentives to make things more interoperable, while the wallet-chain platforms have an incentive to build lasting moats.
5 replies
6 recasts
59 reactions
Tudor 🟣🟡
@tudorizer
web2 called and wanted their playbook back! This looks like a consolidation phase which leads to plutocracy. Multi-platform builders might fall between the cracks. What do you think, @sheldrake ?
2 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
Adam
@adam-
There are those that leverage Web3 as a buzzword for funding and attention, and then there are those that abide by its principles and use it as a framework. The way to suss out who's sincere and who's a charlatan is by seeing how willing the team is to relinquish control and put it in the protocol instead. Right now, IMO, Bluesky is doing this best. They've abstracted the technical, but not to the point where its convoluted ala Mastadon. They allow for customization and decentralization (self hosting hubs, user generated onboarding, importing of old Twitter feeds...etc) in ways others only play lip service to. There's more than one way to do this, but they're actually abiding by the principles of web3 without using the terminology.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
