Dan Romero on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp

If you're actively building a new v1 frame and not a v2 frame, why? Either reply publicly here or send me a private DC. Goal is to better understand what people are missing from v2. Reminder, v2 frames offer the ability to: - run a full mobile web app - users can add / save a frame to Warpcast (and other clients) - developers can send notifications to users in Warpcast

18 replies

22 recasts

168 reactions

Deployer pfp

last v1 frame i made was to let people send ETH to their Bankr wallet. much quicker to implement for my needs. i needed 1) an image, 2) an input field to enter ETH amount, and 3) ability to submit transaction with a v2 frame i'd need to build quite a bit more to accomplish this task, but v1 frame handled all that for me and i just needed to configure a new backend route.

1 reply

1 recast

27 reactions

DegenFans 🎩🔵🫂Ⓜ️ pfp

DegenFans 🎩🔵🫂Ⓜ️

What I like on V1 (and for me V1 could live in combination with V2) You can share with one click a frame with individual user content I only need to generate an image, in V2 I need 2 clicks and I need to generate a image for sharing + the web app I would use the V1 as a teaser which people can easily share and have a second button for a drill down to open a V2 with its full power Also checking light stats, like a rank, feels smoother in the V1 frame , one click I see the number and don’t open an overlay and need to close this overlay.. So I would love to see both in future V1 for teaser and lightweight actions V2 for the real power And the option to drill from V1 to V2 via button

2 replies

0 recast

4 reactions

patxol 🔷 anser.social pfp

patxol 🔷 anser.social

Frames V1 do not require more than just some html fore basic function. Image gallery, a couple of call to action, in less than 1h an existing web app can share links as frames. They are not meant to create apps, and Frames V2 are great for that. Here is a couple of examples of dynamic V1 Frames that take 1h to add on top of an existing site. https://www.patxol.net/posts/velum https://troopcast.xyz/eth-mainnet/0xBC4CA0EdA7647A8aB7C2061c2E118A18a936f13D

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Samuel ツ pfp

@samuellhuber.eth

One button press to do a TX Cc @ericjuta @sidshekhar One button press with POST request for analytics on a Warpcast. / farcaster link e.g. direct to DCs cc @zd

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

redbeard pfp

@preetjdp you had some good feedback?

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Zach pfp

I have yet to see a simple elevator pitch for what frames 2 enables that I can't do with frames v1 (besides "more" (not sure I need that from WC yet)). I've seen demo videos and frames, but my app => WC imagination is already tightly scoped around a V1, and I haven't had the time to really dig into the lift::opportunity difference with V2.

2 replies

0 recast

6 reactions

1dolinski pfp

Inline felt more native.. the loading animation of a miniapp adds friction it feels like I live in a developer sandbox

1 reply

0 recast

5 reactions

Sachin pfp

one guess based on the framev2s I’ve seen is that it does not give the same distribution for content as framesv1 - what was once visible within the feed is now hidden away in the frame (I may be wrong I’ve not actually built one)

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Zach pfp

(your bullets at the end of this == very helpful to reframe V2 opportunity)

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

C O M P Ξ Z pfp

Literally, v2 supports a better UX.

0 reply

0 recast

5 reactions

Kyle B pfp

No building a frame, as a user, I hardly ever interact with v2 frames. I don’t like to get taken to another screen off the timeline which prevents me from interacting with the timeline. Might as well just click into an external link. Atleast then I can switch between and still use timeline while using whatever app.

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

mleejr pfp

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Jhon pfp

In my case, I believe that version 1 is more intuitive and straightforward for users, as it provides a faster and more direct experience. I have no plans to migrate to version 2 until I develop a larger application or one that requires advanced features. I think version 2 is aimed at other use cases, but its implementation involves more steps, longer loading times, and a steeper learning curve. Users generally prefer quick and easy solutions that can be executed with just a few clicks.

0 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

Joe Bae pfp

I think the v2 frame is simpler, You can create mini applications that require opening only through the Farcaster client. One of 4 Frame v2 that I developed and can only be opened in the farcaster client. https://scratchnism.vercel.app

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Marcelo Terça-Nada 💎🎩✨ pfp

Marcelo Terça-Nada 💎🎩✨

@eduxdux it will interest you ✨

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Eduxdux pfp

I'm currently developing in v1 while I learn. I launched my first frame at the beginning of this month. However, I plan to release v2 and I'm already studying for it. One thing I want to understand better is how the audience is engaging with these frames. For example, if there's a frame that displays the status of an Farcaster account with data, and someone wants to share that specific data with their friends to spark a conversation, will that be as easy on v2 as it is in v1?

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

tmo pfp

We are jumping to v2 - just need to make time implement

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Dinhtu.eth pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction