I want to believe this is true but am not 100% convinced. Loot had an incredible energy to it and many auxiliary experiences were indeed built on top of loot.

Perhaps AI and vibe coding of today could have made the loot experiences 100x more plentiful but 

1. Would they have been good? 100x means lack of cohesion, but also 100x more shots on goal which is a positive 

2. I’m not yet sure if it’s possible to build just the base of an extensible system and expect it to turn into something people love vs creating something people love then making it extensible so people can continue to love the thing they already love in new ways. This is a depressing thought though because it means loot can never work

I've been thinking about this more
Dan's product led protocol development feels related.

"Users don’t use protocols, they use apps. Build the first app that is high quality enough to attract qDAU" --> loot did not have this (although that was sort of the point I guess)

"if you build it, they will come”. Can’t expect others to spend the time and effort to build high quality products if you’re not willing to do it yourself." --> I wouldn't say Dom was unwilling to build a product on top of loot, but it goes to show that without the initial catalyst of a compelling experience it's for an "extensible, build anything" system to win

I've been thinking about this more
Dan's product led protocol development feels related.

"Users don’t use protocols, they use apps. Build the first app that is high quality enough to attract qDAU" --> loot did not have this (although that was sort of the point I guess)

"if you build it, they will come”. Can’t expect others to spend the time and effort to build high quality products if you’re not willing to do it yourself." --> I wouldn't say Dom was unwilling to build a product on top of loot, but it goes to show that without the initial catalyst of a compelling experience it's for an "extensible, build anything" system to win 

https://danromero.org/product-led-protocols.html