Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
Garrett
@garrett
This will kill a lot of startups but it seems like a great opportunity for Farcaster to open up to more blockchains and build a more robust DM experience https://decrypt.co/302023/telegram-exclusive-ton-barring-other-networks
13 replies
5 recasts
43 reactions
boscolo.eth
@boscolo.eth
Watching people flock to Telegram in the early days of crypto is when I realized that crypto was no longer a cipherpunk movement. As much as a love Farcaster, it resembles Telegram more than an open alternative.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Garrett
@garrett
How so? What would you like to see from Farcaster?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
boscolo.eth
@boscolo.eth
1/2 Uhg, not looking forward to the blowback for this answer, but here we go. How so? The Farcaster technology is decentralized but not open for anyone else to shape, it is controlled but MM. Hence more like TG than an open Internet protocol. Two data points. 1. FC is only for Ethereum - About a year ago there was talk of more Solana support. Connect a Solana address was added, Solana main players discussing building on Farcaster, and talk of Solana tx support being added to frames v1. Then abruptly, this ended. Why? 2. No open DC/GC support - About a year ago, the XMTP tried to help Farcaster accelerate bringing DC/GC to Farcaster. The MM said thx but no thx, we’ll do this ourselves.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
boscolo.eth
@boscolo.eth
2/2 What would you like to see from Farcaster? This is the wrong question. Farcaster is still 100% controlled by MM, so the real question is what do we want to see from MM? 1. Add Solana tx support to frames 2. Let other community members help bring an open DC/GC protocol into the Farcaster protocol Yes, I realize that anyone can build their own clients with the above capabilities, but at this early stage of the network, if WC doesn’t use it and bless it, that’s a fool’s errand.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
