Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

0xdesigner pfp
0xdesigner
@0xdesigner
ironically leaving farcon more bearish on farcaster. the protocol wants to compete and win at the client level. clients want to win and avoid being dependent on the protocol. all roads lead to winner take all. what’s the point?
36 replies
3 recasts
93 reactions

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Wrote up my thoughts here. Thanks for the nudge. https://warpcast.com/dwr.eth/0x16de8c53
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions

0xdesigner pfp
0xdesigner
@0xdesigner
say you're able to grow qDAU and successfully empower other clients (hypothetically). another client (a non twitter clone) achieves escape velocity user growth, far exceeding any other on the protocol. why wouldn't they fork farcaster? they could presumably achieve consensus of the new thing with enough scale.
4 replies
0 recast
2 reactions

Joonatan | Phaver CEO pfp
Joonatan | Phaver CEO
@joonatan.eth
For @phaverapp we do of course aim at escape velocity and have our standalone graph besides Lens and Farcaster but I see no upside in a fork as network effects are a net positive for us anyway. Only if Dan or Stani go evil then we have the insurance and that’s the real point of web3 graphs for me.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions

0xdesigner pfp
0xdesigner
@0xdesigner
can u say more about the "network effects are a net positive"
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Joonatan | Phaver CEO pfp
Joonatan | Phaver CEO
@joonatan.eth
Sure, for us the interoperability of the network is the key value prop towards users and the more potential reach is always better than less. As long as protocols work I see no reason to fork, that would just take us back to ”Web2 on chain”
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions

Garrett  pfp
Garrett
@garrett
Wouldn’t value capture or monetization be a potential reason to fork?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction