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
61 reactions
Andrei O.
@andrei0x309
This is because capital and VC funds, 90/100 of tribalism, and moats, and silos are caused by that. I wrote code that integrates with most social protocols and platforms out there, for me it's clear that no one wants to build the best social protocol for users. It might be impossible to do so in this economic paradigm.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
