Jason Goldberg
@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
4 recasts
11 reactions
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 that‘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
@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 Clubhouse’s mistake or it will become like Lens Protocol which is full of airdrop farmers.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
timdaub 🥝
@timdaub.eth
yeah same. But on the other side I can understand @betashop.eth‘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
@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
@pcdkd
Farcaster should 100% be focused on allowing sign up to protocol by third-party apps.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
