Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Leo 🪴🎩
@sha25leo.eth
I believe the best way to launch a miniapp is this one. Thanks to @haole for helping me test this feature! @dwr.eth @horsefacts.eth @v
3 replies
4 recasts
17 reactions
Andrei O.
@andrei0x309
Like I said a while back Iframe in simple action should be allowed to make mini apps possible, I mean it's at the client level so clients can already do that if they want. The main idea is that allowing Iframe only in composer action, will not work for most cases as there are more cases when you don't need to modify the contents of the cast, and you want to do something unrelated to the cast.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Leo 🪴🎩
@sha25leo.eth
I strongly agree. In my case, what I need more is to display rankings and open the game through a frame, which would make viral spread more likely.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Andrei O.
@andrei0x309
100/100 The only case against Iframe in simple actions is that can lead to user leaching when users will stop using the main client and go directly to the app in the frame as time passes. But I mean in web3, in theory, we should not try to silo users though unfortunately, that's happening a lot.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Leo 🪴🎩
@sha25leo.eth
No matter which app users navigate to, they ultimately remain on Farcaster. By enabling iframe functionality, we can actually explore more ways to combine community interaction with mini-apps.
1 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Andrei O.
@andrei0x309
I wish everybody had this view. The reality is that: 1 FC can be used just as an identity layer for a mini app which is very thin 2 An mini app could not use FC at all ( maybe using user address at most ) 3 People aren't so open look, 80/100 of code that involves farcaster products is closed source, which leads me to assume ppl seek more profit opportunities than enable quality interactions. But maybe I am too untrustful, we'll see.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
