Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
I often see people Farcaster isn't "sufficiently decentralized". You're free to define what "sufficiently decentralized" means to you, of course, but how we think about it is laid out in Varun's blog post. https://www.varunsrinivasan.com/2022/01/11/sufficient-decentralization-for-social-networks
14 replies
134 recasts
494 reactions
Apex777
@apex777.eth
No issues with me on the "sufficiently decentralized" term. Makes sense IMO. I do feel focusing on making Farcaster as open as possible (DM's / channels) before find tuning the feed should be a priority though. If all clients have the same features, then we have X amount of projects building clients with similar features, each will get more users because of a fair playing field. End result is, more devs / clients / users able to "crack" the feed / spam issues. I'm reluctant, or should I say unable to use any other client full time without DM's and channel features. Would prioritising a level playing field here not be the better play for the whole ecosystem?
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
I think it’s a reasonable request. But prioritizing the playing field and then not having anyone make a significant, long term investment in building is incorrect prioritization. There are virtually no sign ups from other clients and permissionless sign ups have been live for almost a year. Huge lift, no developer pay off. Developers overwhelmingly want us to get 100x more good users for the protocol before anything else.
4 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
d_ttang
@ttang.eth
Can't agree anymore. The reason for not opening up is profit, Warpcast wants to have this piece of cake alone.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
