Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Have noticed there are two popular perspectives on what Farcaster should focus on. The first is “grow users”. People in this camp tend to be building consumer apps. They also tend to have raised some amount of funding. They have relatively higher time preference. The second camp is “optimize for decentralization”. It’s nuanced since most people are in favor of some flavor of sufficient decentralization, but they would prefer fewer centralized experiments and more proactive FIP-based experiments. There’s also a general desire for governance that’s not “rough consensus and running code”. There’s no proposed solution here. We’ve traditionally been more in the first camp. But probably some small changes we could make to make the second camp a bit happier without sacrificing speed of iteration (the most important advantage for an upstart).
10 replies
3 recasts
60 reactions
KMac🍌 ⏩
@kmacb.eth
The tension isn’t new, but it feels sharper now as stakes rise. Builders are fine with tradeoffs. What’s missing isn’t alignment it’s leadership clarity. The hard part is building against shifting signals & changing priorities. If DAU growth is the priority, that’s appreciated. But unclear signaling creates a bullwhip effect—teams make bets that get reversed by top-down shifts. The decentralization crowd isn’t purity testing. Many are actively building infra for the distributed future. Without visibility into roadmap, governance, or decision-making (beyond dev calls), we’re outsourcing our futures & hoping there's green grass left to graze. Things that might help: – Clear protocol roadmap – Defined boundaries: Apps vs Farcaster Protocol – Transparency on FIP adoption vs “team priorities” – Avoiding mid-flight rebrands No one’s asking for perfection—just predictability. Let us build beside you, not beneath you. Still bullish. Happy to help.
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Some responses (unclear if you want to engage more deeply on this): > But unclear signaling creates a bullwhip effect—teams make bets that get reversed by top-down shifts. Example other than Channels? > Clear protocol roadmap We do that bi-weekly at the meeting and I regularly cast priorities? > Defined boundaries: Apps vs Farcaster Protocol What does this mean? > Transparency on FIP adoption vs “team priorities” “Rough consensus and running code” — hard to propose something and get us to prioritize it if you don’t have a client with a lot of users / experimented with a centralized or hacky initial version and have data on usage / have written the proposed PR. FIP is not a pull request for Merkle. Maybe we should make that clearer. > Avoiding mid-flight rebrands I would like to avoid too, but better to rip the band-aid off if it’s not working and actively hurting the primary goal.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Garrett
@garrett
A central place for those bi-weekly meeting notes and your priority casts would be helpful Today, you have to dig significantly to find this stuff Farcaster microsite with all the relevant info and updates would be helpful imo
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
