butterfly
@nerdsniped
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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
butterfly
@nerdsniped
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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
butterfly
@nerdsniped
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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
butterfly
@nerdsniped
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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
butterfly
@nerdsniped
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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
butterfly
@nerdsniped
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.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction