Downstream of where the quality discourse is happening and a lagging indicator of future success.

There’s no disputing twitter is the king but the more interesting question is will it continue to be.

Especially as it leans into debate as a metric for discourse. But if they incentivize for it then it might lead to arguments for the sake of arguing which would be lower quality discourse sort of like empty calories.

Or it might not. But that’s the real leading indicator and I’m curious what a good metric might be of quality discourse. Some mix of length of messages per thread and length of thread. Or presence of “domain experts” in the thread.

Measuring this and optimizing for it wins you the next decade at least I think.

Twitter is upstream of all other social networks for "the discourse".

All the "shadowy cabal chat groups" are 80% "post link to tweet and discuss".

Only way to "beat" Twitter is play a different game. 

New composable primitives powered by crypto (which make it harder for incumbents to copy).

Channels that enable cozy corners yet are public, permissionless and composable.

on Twitter, there are not so many advantages of the blue tick, but here the badge of power simply destroys ordinary users, driving them into the shadow, a simple example, my post published 30 seconds ago, a few posts below the post published 5 minutes ago with the badge of power, or just an old post with a badge rises above your post, blocking you. as for the feed, I don't even see many posts from my friends, just people I don't know with badges of power, whom I don't even read, there is no such thing on Twitter, and this makes them better )