Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
Vladyslav Dalechyn
@dalechyn.eth
It's hard for people who are not at least one inch deep into the Farcaster protocol to even tell the difference between Warpcast and Farcaster. Warpcast isn't the only client, it's just the first one. Anyone is open to build another client™ make smoother UX, richer DX and win Warpcast. In a non-decentralized environment you wouldn't be able to do it.
15 replies
7 recasts
69 reactions
Vladyslav Dalechyn
@dalechyn.eth
Making changes to social graph is a risky and very complex change to be done – forking should be much more endorsed to let people not just iterate on the app client looks/ideas – but also on the protocol level. I'd say it's the Step 2 for App Clients – you firstly iterate by building a "private" subset of a social graph, and only when you feel like the change is really positive and that it finds it use, you contribute to "L1". A good example of this is /uno's stories.
2 replies
1 recast
5 reactions
Steve
@stevedylandev.eth
Only qualifier I might add is that the protocol is ultimately still controlled by Merkle. Yes it’s permissionless, but FIPs and other decisions are still ultimately decided by the Merkle team. Examples include FIP-171, channels, and hub architecture. They do ask for feedback, but nothing can force their hand even if a majority disagrees. Not saying that’s a bad thing, it’s a VC funded startup that has to succeed, but just something people should be fully aware of before they start building.
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Kevang30.degen.eth 🇻🇪
@kevang30.eth
In short, you can plant on their land, but they still decide how much you can plant. Their position as a company is understandable. Hopefully one day this can change and real decentralization can be achieved.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
