df on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

20 recasts

20 reactions

df pfp

The Farcaster protocol does very little today in the way of solving conflicts or UX problems around multiple competing clients; which, one might expect, is the hard & important thing to solve in a social protocol. Farcaster is being controlled & governed by the 99% client (Warpcast), repeatedly making choices that limit the ability of alternate clients to build and compete (See SIWF, Messaging, Channels). As a builder, it's unclear why Farcaster is not any different from early Twitter, which was open, had alt clients, but one overwhelmingly dominant client. Once Twitter became big enough, it shifted from attracting to extracting, and shut down their API, becoming the Twitter of today, ruled by a benevolent dictator. Is Farcaster/Warpcast just running back the Twitter playbook? Why should we users and builders trust Warpcast's continued benevolence, when their short term choices are already showing a willingness to compromise on the Protocol part in the name of monoclient growth?

13 replies

18 recasts

75 reactions

woj pfp

there is a lot of other projects that put decentralization and open access on the first spot, but farcaster / warpcast proved to be the most useful to build on top of > Why should we users and builders trust Warpcast's continued benevolence... warpcast never did anything malicious, all the problems can be attributed to priorities — if merkle had an infinite dev hours at disposal today, i don't see a part of the roadmap that is killing supercast

2 replies

1 recast

5 reactions

df pfp

I agree it‘s a question of priorities - and it‘s clear that being a protocol and not a platform hasn‘t been one since raising. No reason to believe this won‘t be the case again, at scale. If they don‘t have the resources now, with 100M in the bank and no urgent fires, what makes you think they‘ll make the time when there‘s actual early PMF and everything is breaking and opportunity cost is even higher?

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions