fc is closer to a chain ecosystem than it is a standalone social network. we have our own clients, devs, culture, apps, tokens, indexes, a retroactive grant program, etc. limiting yourself to a social network when there’s 100s of millions of dollar in capital flowing through the ecosystem doesn’t make much sense. especially because, as you said, ecosystem growth drives network growth, which in turn improves retention. so we kind of are talking about tvl & tx, as that is how the network grows, just like anything else in crypto: first, money is made. from there, retention emerges through resonance (top down) & attracting reinvestment. churn is the result of failing to do so (attention turnover)

re the game question. i’m not saying you’re not. i’m just saying that if you are, no one knows, and therein lies the value of marketing/optics & presenting a unified front on all things eco/dev on fc. a dedicated role crafting that story would be beneficial to current & perspective devs looking into this eco

on the basil and dan back-n-forths the last few weeks, there's no way to "prove" either approach is correct of course, which suggests that fc should be running as many experiments as possible to get data which ofc they do, but very few of those experiments are in the category you might find in the typical L1 playbook, which makes sense considering most are trash, but maybe there is some ounce of wisdom to be gleaned there, but heading in that direction would require "de-focusing" slightly which is contrary to dan's product ideals, which have worked successfully because of the orthodoxy he brings to them, but sometimes the sharp edges of orthodoxy become obstinacy and keep you from the answers, but what if you end up trying those things and they produce trash results as expected, suddenly you've now wasted time and lost momentum

my thoughts

stop the fucking wall of text dawg

use that enter button

a fucking book with that size of a paragraph wouldn't get published these days