Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Saw a few casts grumbling about the next iteration of frames Clearing up misconceptions: 1. We circulated earlier versions of the public draft with a dozen or teams who are actively building frames. 2. Existing frames will continue to work as is. If people continue to build them and they have meaningful usage, we will support them. 3. Our goal with the changes is to give developers *more* surface area to build better experiences and *more* reliability for one shot actions like transactions (still clunky today). 4. Frames are just links. So other clients can choose to adopt or not and they will start work. 5. Frames are Farcaster primitives not just Warpcast because they contain social context, e.g. a user’s FID
7 replies
162 recasts
443 reactions
agusti 🐘
@bleu.eth
> 2. Existing frames will continue to work as is. If people continue to build them and they have meaningful usage, we will support them. This is all we wanted to hear imho, I think the -we'll decide if sunsetting- them on 6 months is just not a great prospect for anyone building on it. Protocols shouldn't be sunsetted. Frames v2 looks cool and actually has many interesting ideas (hooks on ui for specific composer actions) -Using usage metrics to decide in the future makes sense, but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy to announce a sunset of a featureset/protocol like v1, like few people is incentivized to now build on it if they think its going away. I was thinking about making an interactive frames tutorial at frame.st but prob not worth it rn
1 reply
1 recast
9 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Let’s just see where usage is in a few months. What frame are you worried about?
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
