Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
sean đš
@swabbie.eth
just an observation on $ANON lore â it seems like there was some frustration around its inception (the timing, distribution, etc) but let's be honest â $ANON could *only* ever be created anonymously and fully distributed immediately. for its creation to be planned by a known individual would destroy the narrative. this was the only way. i'm sure @supercast can have its own token for its members at some point, but the true $ANON could only ever exist anonymously.
3 replies
3 recasts
5 reactions
accountless
@accountless.eth
semi anonymous bc itâs not anonymous
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
accountless
@accountless.eth
riffing: super anon is pseudo anon and thatâs ok. supercast keeps logs and can read logs; they say they wonât unless required; but⌠supercast team, knows others here on socials, your peers and friends and competitors, etc bc we are all one community. this makes it even less pseudo and raises risk. this isnât the same trust you would have with letâs say facebook. with Facebook if they saw your data, you wouldnât be worried that Zuckerberg would tell your ex partner. so there is a sword w many edges here
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Chainleft
@chainleft
wait I thought there was zk-tech behind superanon account. they can really see who's written?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
accountless
@accountless.eth
yes. they can. this doesnât mean they will. it just means they can. so imo it changes the behavior
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
sean đš
@swabbie.eth
https://warpcast.com/woj.eth/0x7f9f65f9
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
accountless
@accountless.eth
i donât think woj would do something shady. i hesitate to say âtrustâ bc thatâs not a word i use. i feel comfy tho. i just wonât use super anon for something id really post anonymous
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Chainleft
@chainleft
My interest is mostly about the experiment, novelty and the signalling of the feature. But I get why they might be hesitant.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
