Varun Srinivasan
@v
"Worse is better" is a good principle when thinking adding to the Farcaster protocol. Too often, the discussions veers to making the feature more generic to support hypothetical use cases. What often happens is: 1. The extra feature gets low usage 2. Every developer building a client now has a tax 3. Some developers don't pay the tax, and ignore the feature The feature isn't well supported, and no one uses it, and just creates a bunch of ongoing debt for everyone. The goal for every feature should be adoption - if no one can guarantee that the feature will be adopted after it is implemented, we probably shouldn't ship it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better
7 replies
35 recasts
111 reactions
KMac🍌 ⏩
@kmacb.eth
Please reconsider this perspective on what ‘worse’ is. Framing worse from solely a protocol development context is likely different and arguably ‘better’ than an app dev’s who controls a protocol. I’d argue the ‘worse’ solution at this time is to have one msg type (let’s call that URL) vs picking X/twitter & geolocation & & & & & & As an eg tokenUri has evolved to mean more. Worse became better via ‘usage’. ht vrypan.eth The idea that FC protocol devs decide which domains should get new message type feels very wrong & potentially strategically detrimental as opinions & values get murkier. Where will it stop? 10 msg types? 100? Just a handful of legacy winners? Why go here? It’s seems unnecessary & ‘taxing’. Arguments #1, 2 & 3 seem to contradict each other. Protocol changes impact clients assuming the client wants to use it. Not sure what you mean by tax & how that’s discriminatory. Will you elaborate? Sadly I missed the dev call today. Will catch up on vid this weekend.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction