brypto

i like WalletConnect, but the token seems forced

"WCT plays a key role within the WalletConnect Network, helping to fuel UX innovation across web3 and enable a more usable onchain landscape"

reading the key functions, it's everything but helping to fuel UX innovation. it's basically the same as every token 'utility' we've seen in last years, and it hasn't worked. another DAO? no thanks.

somewhere between all the grifts and cringe moments, we as a community decided that it's ok to assume a cynical attitude towards absolutely everything. 

"i lost a lot of money trading shitcoins so, no one should launch a token now"

You *should* be default cynical about tokens right now

The data from the last 7-8 years is damning

lol, doxxed.  Clearly Ran is WalletConnect

researching onchain | writing tomu.xyz founded overgie.com mintgate.io | nf.td/tomu

can you give examples of previous tokens with similar utilities?

i wish i traded shitcoins that much lmao

projects should launch tokens if their utility make sense. check previous tokens with similar utilities, and you'll know where they'll end up

microsub.

I'm supporting you through /microsub!

89 $DEGEN

(Please mute the keyword "ms!t" if you prefer not to see these casts.)

TLDR: there are servers thus, DePIN. 

given WC's architecture, in the long run, either the company hosts the servers needed to run WC or there needs to be an incentive structure for network participants to run this infra in a distributed way. 

i'm personally not a buyer because I think what WC solves for can be achieved via an architecture that doesn't require that middle man infrastructure and that'll be the winning model due to higher efficiency. 
this latter architecture is similar to why farpcaster doesn't need to incentivize people to run hubs -- whoever needs it will just run it for themselves.

What’s the steelman for why this token is useful (and thus long-term valuable)?