i wonder why is it that so many blockchain protocols market themselves as infrastructure. to developers or researchers i can see the appeal but it seems silly to lecture users about architectural design choices.

I like crypto nerd snipes, please forgive me in advance.

one reason could be to highlight features which are cutting edge or push the boundaries of existing tech stack. 

but again users really care more about the application and not the specific protocol.

for example if investors perceive protocol a is advertising some feature well then they advice protocol b to add that feature or at least market that feature in some way.

another reason is mimetic desire. founders copy other founders they view as successful. 

maybe one more reason is that founders give too much autonomy to leads without understanding the tradeoffs.

i tend to think its probably case specific and some combination of these factors and thinks i did not mention. 

im just guessing. this issue is perplexing. if you look at successful web 2 startups often they start with a simple product before expanding out features.

i haven’t seen many blockchain projects take this approach yet. you can argue that an emphasis on rollup appchains or appchains in general caters to this approach. i still don’t see much emphasis on product however, with few exceptions.

i think wallets maybe have done a better job of this in general because their focus is on great ux, snappy interface and keeping the user active within their app. chain abstraction becomes important.

maybe once it becomes clearer that L2 is a natural unified liquidity layer then L3 apps will have the chance to build without reference to infrastructure marketing to users but instead show the users how cool their application is. 

you can pull this off on a universal rollup as well it just hasn’t been done yet.

one thing which is important to decide is money. if you think your blockchain or rollups native token should be perceived as programmable money then you probably need to make that the first product. unfortunately prog money maximalism has downsides in the short and long runs.

at this point its unlikely any crypto native money besides stablecoins can outcompete ether or bitcoin due to network effects. some would disagree but i think its a reasonable assertion until proven otherwise.

given that programmable money is not going to be the it feature for your chain then you need to look at rollup like security models. 

but also it can free you into thinking about designing a rollup specifically for core product features to optimize performance for specific use cases.

indeed any team building this type of rollup would need technical communications. but the emphasis 80% at least of the communications should be on the product. 

talk is cheap however. you probably need an mvp app before shilling too hard and losing credibility. hype is only helpful if you can execute.

looking forward to seeing applications for programmable money flourish in the coming years and chip away at the mass adoption part of the curve.

hopefully we see less architecture marketing and more emphasis on product features because this is what users care about. 

once they come we can educate them on our values and help them become more sophisticated with their understanding and overall ecosystem vibes/culture.

another reason could be there really aren’t too many models that map to the current fundraising and launch paradigm.

investors can also give bad advice, speculating, which leads founders not strong in areas like marketing, community growth or bd in a vulnerable position.