A lot of complaints recently that Farcaster doesn't have enough "beef".

I'm happy to fight with you.

Bluesky has more users than Farcaster and is also sufficiently decentralized.

What is the best argument for why devs should build on Farcaster instead of Bluesky?

Answering the question "where's the beef?"

now that threads has joined the fediverse, do you think that in 5-10 years the % of fediverse users using bluesky's primary server (assuming AT protocol fully bridged to fediverse) will be greater than the % of farcaster users using warpcast as their primary client?

this is a serious question.

because knowing is finding the limits /outercorps

Threads does not fully interoperate with the fediverse, i.e. the graph is not available.

Bluesky is not in the fediverse? 

Any bridging they do could happen for Farcaster?

I'm generally bearish on a single decentralized protocol as winner take all. Think there will be a plurality.

i believe the plan is to bridge all of them. if the long-term goal is to bridge hubs with fediverse-style servers, why go through the hassle of a distributed network that isn't turing complete if it has a very dominant client anyway?

I guess worth stepping back.

Our bet is user-controlled identity will live on public blockchains, not consortium / non-profit servers.

Our bet is also a tightly integrated identity to cryptocurrency will offer more interesting apps and services over time.

If that doesn't happen, I expect a federated protocol to be the big one.

I'm skeptical (based on the prevailing political views) that current federated systems will be open to cryptocurrency.

i believe the plan is to bridge all of them. if the long-term goal is to bridge hubs with fediverse-style servers, why go through the hassle of a distributed network that isn't turing complete if it has a very dominant client anyway?

https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/05/bluesky-and-mastodon-users-can-now-talk-to-each-other-with-bridgy-fed/