Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions

phil pfp
phil
@phil
Some chatter on this, especially around the “eat their lunch” phrasing My perspective as a user: Warpcast has a difficult role to play: as the largest product on the Farcaster protocol, their actions will drive the majority of new user growth Along the way, there will be other apps that emerge to fill gaps in the Warpcast value prop. Scheduled casts, onchain actions, real time chat, etc As those features are validated by users, the Warpcast team is then faced with a choice: integrate these features into the main app (thereby stimulating growth), or intentionally avoid building it to reduce competition with ecosystem partners The rub: if Farcaster doesn’t significantly grow, then all ecosystem apps will likely die anyway due to lack of sufficient users. My personal framework around this topic is less vibes driven and more realpolitik; as an app builder, you have to be prepared for your great feature idea to be copied as soon as it’s proven to be successful with users.
7 replies
27 recasts
212 reactions

ruhum pfp
ruhum
@ruhum
If Warpcast grows, Farcaster grows. That’s the gist of it. Anything else isn’t important.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions

phil pfp
phil
@phil
Well, not quite There is an important balance in ceding non-essential features to other products Otherwise you risk burning the developer ecosystem and stunting funding if startups are reluctant to build for fear of being rolled over It’s a balancing act
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions

ruhum pfp
ruhum
@ruhum
I think the importance is whether the feature attracts new users or existing users. I think we can confidently say >90% of Farcaster users are also Warpcast users. If a feature in a third party farcaster app attracts existing, i.e. Warpcast, users, they shouldn’t copy it. Because there’s no point. But, if a feature attracts completely new users that’s a different story.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction