Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
0xdesigner
@0xdesigner
ironically leaving farcon more bearish on farcaster. the protocol wants to compete and win at the client level. clients want to win and avoid being dependent on the protocol. all roads lead to winner take all. what’s the point?
36 replies
3 recasts
93 reactions
Nico
@sneeks.eth
I understand the protocol wanting to win at the client level early stage because they can maintain a bit of leadership and culture control to make sure things grow in the direction they see. "clients want to win and avoid being dependent on the protocol." Can you say more about this?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
llamafacts
@llamafacts.eth
https://warpcast.com/llamafacts.eth/0x486ceb84
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Nico
@sneeks.eth
A client that only uses some of farcaster's functionality doesn't seem like a net negative. It brings more users to the ecosystem as it grows. What am I missing?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
llamafacts
@llamafacts.eth
Well I guess it's a matter of opinion. If that client has many ways of authorizing users (so fc is just one more option), and only uses fc to attract users but is not actively bringing in new* users to the protocol, I think it's a net negative. But apparently even Dan seems to think otherwise. I don't understand why.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Nico
@sneeks.eth
Ah, like additional users adds processing overhead to FC, without adding value? I think the endgame is data (just like in web2). FC is already tremendously valuable to me because I have access to every single cast from every single user... for free. X would never give me this.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
