links 🏴 pfp

links 🏴

@links

1278 Following
7872 Followers
links 🏴 pfp
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
0 reply
1 recast
8 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
2 replies
1 recast
15 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
links 🏴 pfp
I disagree. I don’t think the Base app is better to onboard non-crypto people than the Farcaster app. Farcaster is a better “everything app” (eApp) as well. The reasons why are subtle. First, the best eApps base their experience around a familiar/flexible mechanic: chat or feed. This is important. The cognitive load of learning a new app/function is high for new users. Having a familiar mechanic be the UI for the “everything” makes it easier for new users to pick up and use. FC is feed-first, while Base’s Home Screen is mini app heavy with multiple types of UI/concepts. This makes it more difficult for new users to adopt. Second, FC features show more understanding of non-crypto natives than Base. One example: “coin every post” is supposed to be for creators, but creators must first go viral and then know when to sell to make any money from this. The feature is asking creators to be social-savvy AND trade-savvy. Meanwhile FC’s weekly tip and new creator feature gets creators paid if they can make a single 1-to-1 connection. FC’s offering aligns much better with non-crypto creator mindsets while Base’s aligns with crypto-native mentality. Third, FC has built a user journey which onboards non-crypto people gradually instead of all-at-once. Creator rewards/tips/etc funneling into an embedded wallet for use in mini apps all provide an intuitive way for people to earn/use crypto step-by-step. Base, on the other hand, forces you to create a passkey smart wallet and starts the user with mini apps , many of which may not be usable without existing funds. Using the Base app, it feels like it’s built for existing CB Wallet users and maybe CB Retail users. The decisions are so consistent that it feels like that was the intention. There’s nothing wrong with that. I just don’t think it’s an industry game-changer or anything.
3 replies
1 recast
21 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
There’s a long term misalignment between everything apps (eApps) and the developers who build on their platforms. The value prop to devs building on an eApp platform is distribution. At small scale this is win-win: the dev gets audience and the platform gets activity. Unfortunately if devs create something really successful on an eApp platform their next steps are adversarial. If you’re a dev with traction, you’ll usually want to add features to your app and deepen the relationship with your users. But eApp platforms are necessarily feature-shallow; they only expose functionality to engage on their own platform. They don’t want users leaving their experience for another. In the best case you’re constrained as a dev and in the worst case the eApp platform will copy your functionality natively into their platform to cut you out. All this to say devs should be thoughtful when building for eApps. Don’t build ON the platform, USE the platform for early distribution and testing. Think about the path to convert eApp users to YOUR users (ie by collecting email/SMS), and take what eApp builders say with a grain of salt. Everything apps provide a lot of value to developers, but it’s not in their interest to speak of the adversarial incentives. It’s your job as a product developer to understand them.
0 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
1 reply
1 recast
9 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
3 replies
1 recast
5 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
links 🏴 pfp
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
8 replies
0 recast
15 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
5 replies
0 recast
9 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
links 🏴 pfp
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
links 🏴 pfp
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
0 reply
1 recast
7 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
3 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
1 reply
1 recast
3 reactions
links 🏴 pfp
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions