Manuel pfp
Manuel
@manuelmaccou.eth
We will ALWAYS fall back to old ways. Wants privacy -> goes to Web3 … nope. XTMP + public blockchain = no privacy + spam based on onchain data. Full circle. You don’t need to know someone’s personal info to invade their privacy. And people are excited about it! I hope I’m wrong. Tell me I’m wrong.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Manuel pfp
Manuel
@manuelmaccou.eth
I could have used a better term than “spam”. I mean any communication from a brand. Brands that adopt Web3 like Nike or Starbucks have a ton of information about our “Web3 selves” because of the blockchain. And now they can message us with ads based on that. And even sell it for their affiliates to message us
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Manuel pfp
Manuel
@manuelmaccou.eth
You won’t need a web interface since it’s built in to Coinbase wallet. There definitely could be some allowlist-like features. I hope there is. But knowing Web3, there won’t be any regulations for other wallets using a similar solution. Maybe GDPR will extend to wallets? That would be ideal.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
pol pfp
pol
@polmaire.eth
This is both a problem and an opportunity. 1/ this spam problem will be fixed at protocol level with economics and at client level with UX / filtering. It is also an opportunity because clients can use this data in order to recommend relevant people to talk to.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
pol pfp
pol
@polmaire.eth
2/ you can also create a very new wallet and only share it with people you trust (like a telephone number today). There's very little chance to have spam this way.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Manuel pfp
Manuel
@manuelmaccou.eth
Continued from above…I don’t trust any company in web2 when it comes to being confident they won’t share my info. But I share the info out of necessity. I don’t see how Web3 can fix this when their company operations and partnerships and other offchain activities are not known.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Manuel pfp
Manuel
@manuelmaccou.eth
Ok this starts to get interesting. Could all of those accounts be linked to a single ID…maybe one that uses ZK so no one knows it and no one can send messages to it? Or even a zk wallet where brands can’t see the address, and therefore can’t send it to their affiliates?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
jamesyoung.eth pfp
jamesyoung.eth
@jamesyoung
https://twitter.com/jamesyoung/status/1681350662611763200?s=46&t=eQL8pbrLElba5vTqDdKV7w
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Manuel pfp
Manuel
@manuelmaccou.eth
I see leaving a platform or protocol different from letting unwanted actors in. Like letting brands mass message everyone on Farcaster or Coinbase Wallet by default. Is there a connection I’m not seeing? There should be a protocol level (ex. XTMP) permission that is opt-out by default with masked addresses
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction