KMacđ â©
@kmacb.eth
Been thinking about the Warpcast â Farcaster naming debate. If you donât love the Warpcast brand, change it â thatâs an app-level decision. But I donât think this is a market problem. Feels more like an internal team identity crisis than anything external. The confusion isnât from users â itâs from how the Merkle Manufactory team talks about what theyâre building. The framing is nearly always protocol-first, never app-first. That works for devs, but itâs disorienting for regular users trying to make sense of what theyâre using. If the concern is app adoption or brand clarity, the answer isnât to rename the protocol. Itâs to embrace the app. Let Warpcast be Warpcast â and speak to people like itâs an OS for the crypto social internet. Let Farcaster be the rulebook underneath (verify / store / forward⊠oh snap! consensus). Itâs still early. There are wrong moves. Letâs not collapse layers just because theyâre currently close. Growth will pull them apart anyway.
5 replies
0 recast
12 reactions
matthias
@iammatthias
It's an opportunity for another client
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
shazow
@shazow.eth
Doesn't help that a lot of what's interesting about Farcaster are actually Warpcast-only features.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
> The confusion isnât from users â itâs from how the Merkle Manufactory team talks about what theyâre building. The framing is nearly always protocol-first, never app-first. That works for devs, but itâs disorienting for regular users trying to make sense of what theyâre using. The challenge is 4 years of brand equity only talking about Farcaster. Seems silly to throw away when the top request from developers is overwhelmingly grow users. This helps that.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Stephan
@stephancill
Totally agree
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Vivacious đ©đ
@vivacious
I agree, cause I like the name Warpcast.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
