Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
df pfp
df
@df
The Farcaster protocol does very little today in the way of solving conflicts or UX problems around multiple competing clients; which, one might expect, is the hard & important thing to solve in a social protocol. Farcaster is being controlled & governed by the 99% client (Warpcast), repeatedly making choices that limit the ability of alternate clients to build and compete (See SIWF, Messaging, Channels). As a builder, it's unclear why Farcaster is not any different from early Twitter, which was open, had alt clients, but one overwhelmingly dominant client. Once Twitter became big enough, it shifted from attracting to extracting, and shut down their API, becoming the Twitter of today, ruled by a benevolent dictator. Is Farcaster/Warpcast just running back the Twitter playbook? Why should we users and builders trust Warpcast's continued benevolence, when their short term choices are already showing a willingness to compromise on the Protocol part in the name of monoclient growth?
13 replies
37 recasts
81 reactions
rish pfp
rish
@rish
sorry decentralized hubs and onchain identities are not the same as twitter APIs Yes there are some things that aren't on the protocol yet but that's not the same as saying the whole thing is centralized and can be pulled away like Twitter seems to be written overly dramatic in one direction to create a conversation maybe? not sure
2 replies
1 recast
4 reactions
df pfp
df
@df
I didn‘t say the whole thing is centralized. I said that its ruggable. Given the long history of platforms rugging developers and MM backpedaling on the protocol I think it’s entirely fair concern.
2 replies
0 recast
9 reactions
rish pfp
rish
@rish
what's the rug scenario when there are thousands of independent hubs and fids are on optimism?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
df pfp
df
@df
for example MM decides its too expensive and difficult to make the protocol work at scale and stops publishing realtime messages to other hubs while having dominant marketshare. Whats left is a stale hubs network with no new messages coming in and a bunch of fids you cant even control without users going into WC and exporting their wallet. Or they could also disallow exporting wallets - perhaps in the name of safety
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
rish pfp
rish
@rish
1. largest cohort of retained FC users are developers who are here because it allows a new type of social product development, similar to how early ethereum users were developers because it allowed new kinds of financial development. Doing what you say above will kill the demand from the core user group. Warpcast will die if the core user cohort leaves. There's no real incentive to do this. 2. There is historical evidence to prove that Merkle does understand the above and are committed to building an open protocol. There were no hubs to start, they were simply promised in the future. Since then, Hubs have come online and multiple additions to protocol have been made. Similar promises are in place today for more things to be on the protocol in the future. There's no evidence to show that the commitment of decentralizing over a longer time frame has changed. > Or they could also disallow exporting wallets - perhaps in the name of safety This is just wondering out loud on weak hypotheses that creates FUD
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
df pfp
df
@df
1. this is a great go to market, but no reason this stays true with growth. 2. MM has shown openness is less important than WC growth and competitive positioning to them. See original args & also no open source client/code You asked for an example scenario - thats by definition wondering out loud. Pretty much every platform on the internet starts out being open & cooperative and closing down as it captures more of the market - the precedent is there
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction