links 🏴 pfp
links 🏴
@links
There’s a lot of criticism on Merkle right now for channel transfers. I wanted to provide another perspective as a community builder. When building community, especially early, you need to focus on attracting and retaining people who ACT - provide content, engage, etc. You also need to make these people feel good so they stick around. When negative people arrive and start taking up space, they can crowd out good actors with their demands, vibes, and derailing. As a community builder, you must prioritize your good actors over the bad, EVEN AT THE EXPENSE OF PERCEIVED FAIRNESS. If you don’t, you risk bad actors driving the good ones away, and ending up with nothing. It’s actually a shitty job - no matter what you do people will complain. Good community builders must have the courage to be disliked.
1 reply
0 recast
8 reactions
Leeward Bound pfp
Leeward Bound
@leewardbound
all of this is true but at the same time it seems kinda like writing them a pass, this isn't the first time they've caught flak for having a lukewarm commitment to decentralization and failing to embody eth's ethos (while reaping the benefits of larping it)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
links 🏴 pfp
links 🏴
@links
“Commitment to decentralization” is such a vague statement, and if you really wanted ”full decentralization” you’d likely want to use another network like Lens. Farcaster is about “sufficient decentralization”, and the result is a rapidly iterable product and (imho) superior UX compared to Lens. All this to say that product devs have to choose what they are actually decentralizing, it’s not a catch-all term. Anyone can accuse anything of not being decentralized enough. I also had an issue with their choices around channels before they were permissionless (they gave one I was asking for to someone else), but as a user I accepted it and continued to use Farcaster because I feel it is better than alternatives.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Leeward Bound pfp
Leeward Bound
@leewardbound
again just some real weak cover for concerns that have been persistent the whole time ive been here, these concerns deserve more than to be hand-waved away (which has also been the official response time and time again). i won't try to change your mind, but it's clear to many of us that "sufficiently decentralized" has been widely criticized as dubious and insufficient, and the bus factor of this network is still basically 1. the channel reassignments are just a canary in the coal mine - it's hard to reconcile "sufficiently decentralized" and "necessarily centralized", anyone should feel at least a little bit uncomfortable taking both these stances at once.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
links 🏴 pfp
links 🏴
@links
Don’t really see how the bus factor is 1 when literally anyone can run a Hub but thanks for sharing your thoughts with me! I genuinely appreciate it.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction