Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
The value of an FID is in the social graph—both stated (following) and revealed (activity). Profile is secondary. There is minimal (no?) value in the onchain primitive absent the above.
3 replies
3 recasts
70 reactions
Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
This is why digital identity is always emergent from apps with utility. If you spend a lot of time using an app / platform / OS, it starts to become your identity. Building an identity layer is the wrong order of operations. You earn the right to be an identity layer by time spent, usage, people building on it, etc.
6 replies
3 recasts
42 reactions
Just Build pfp
Just Build
@justbuild
Seems like a strong case for why no other client could ever hope to compete with Warpcast in the long run.
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
The Farcaster identity lives outside of Warpcast.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Just Build pfp
Just Build
@justbuild
True, but by your reasoning the value of it is retained in the Warpcast application via time spent, usage, people building on it, etc.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
It's more nuanced here, since the identity on Farcaster is not tightly coupled to the client / server (contrast to email). It lives at the network live, like a phone number.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Just Build pfp
Just Build
@justbuild
Sure, and I appreciate that in every way shape and form. The graph is a superior construct for that reason. Full stop. However, there are norms that are being instilled into the utilization of FC via WC through "time spent" and unique features like channels, which don't reside in the protocol. As apps populate WC with greater velocity that becomes even more true, so I think your central thesis is sound. So, sure its phone number, but the house and everything in it will be WC.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
That's incorrect. Channels are on the protocol other than creation and settings. All of the content for channels are on Hubs. Anyone can cast into channels from other clients.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Just Build pfp
Just Build
@justbuild
Fair enough, bad example, I was thinking of channels from a moderators pov, which is one dimensional.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Just Build pfp
Just Build
@justbuild
Maybe I need to think through this more throughly to present a more thoughtful example, but anecdotally the more I use WC, the more it does feel like a extension of my identity. This is why what you said resonated so clearly. Coupled with the discussion from last night, I am starting to agree that WC will likely exert too much gravity for any other client to exist. Something I didn't think before.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction