Jason Goldberg โ“‚๏ธ ๐Ÿ’œ pfp
Jason Goldberg โ“‚๏ธ ๐Ÿ’œ
@betashop.eth
I woke up this morning in Tokyo to 2 casts from @dwr.eth regarding future of Farcaster As a developer building on Farcaster, I found them to be a bit contradictory, unsettling, & overly defeatist. Farcaster has been building a solid foundation for a strong future. That future is dependent on app... longcast.jam.so/jjcJMh
17 replies
3 recasts
9 reactions

timdaub pfp
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
Externally, IMO one core issue here may be that @betashop.eth feels held back by certain technical decisions. E.g. if Merkle controls the FID contracts, then thatโ€˜s hard to disrupt by a growth-maxi team like Jam. Are the FID contracts only governed by Merkle?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Chu Ka-Cheong pfp
Chu Ka-Cheong
@kc
Registration on the contract is gated rn. But I do see why they are keeping it this way. If they are opening it too soon, it will likely repeat Clubhouseโ€™s mistake or it will become like Lens Protocol which is full of airdrop farmers.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction

timdaub pfp
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
yeah same. But on the other side I can understand @betashop.ethโ€˜s POV too. IMO then an option is that Jam duplicates the FID contract with an open registration and their node accepts messages from the contract. I think the set reconciliation would still work but WC nodes would only see WC content right?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Chu Ka-Cheong pfp
Chu Ka-Cheong
@kc
The current implementation of hub is very coupled with the FID contract. On the other hand, I think @dwr.eth can give them a number of invitation quota and API so that Jam can have the whole onboarding flow on their app.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

daniel pfp
daniel
@pcdkd
Farcaster should 100% be focused on allowing sign up to protocol by third-party apps.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction