Warpcast

Should an app and a protocol be named the same or different things?

Uniswap is the app (website and now mobile app) and a protocol. This hasn't stopped developers from building on the Uniswap protocol.

In addition, in the previous cycle, many consumers wanting to trade tokens onchain used the Uniswap website. Others used wallets with swap functionality built on the permisionless Uniswap protocol.

For NFTs, the app and protocol were split—OpenSea and Seaport. However, since it was a consumer app, the brand being the thing consumers heard about meant that OpenSea was easier to find and onboard to. No one except for developers knew about Seaport. (Fair to say Seaport is less important protocol than Uniswap.)

Email and the web both have strong protocol branding that's independent of the clients. Same goes for Ethereum, and a lesser degree Solana (in the case of wallets).

i frame this debate as a consumer vs developer experience one. a unified name-change would sufficiently make it easier for consumers to adopt while the opposite is true for developers. 

my stand is with consumers. more consumers = more opportunity for devs to build on. as @v shared the no 1 issue why devs are reluctant to build is less consumer adoption with the protocol. 

rebrand is always welcome and i would say it is a sweet spot for the farcaster/warpcast name-change. why? because we have a budding/ dev eco with 

prioritize users now until farcaster is a mainstream social network app and developers would always catch up with building. #1 reason devs would be attracted to build is if user growth is ultra (billion-level users, million-level dau)

Technowatermelon. Elder Millenial. Building Farcaster. 

nf.td/varun

we’re in a new internet with blockchain tech.

that said

warpcast ~> farcaster 
protocol ~> cast protocol or maintain farcaster protocol