David Furlong
@df
One of the consequences of this is that platforms have an incentive to make things not be interoperable with other platforms, as it's their competitive advantage. Builders who choose a single wallet-chain ecosystem will get more distribution, support, funding & even possibly preferential tx execution than builders who choose to try to go multi platform. We saw glimpses of this with web3 social. The social apps that aggregated rather than betting one protocol were both less liked by the tribal users of individual protocols, and also less promoted by the protocols themselves. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out, as OP and ZkSync have incentives to make things more interoperable, while the wallet-chain platforms have an incentive to build lasting moats.
5 replies
6 recasts
61 reactions
Tudor 🟣🟡
@tudorizer
web2 called and wanted their playbook back! This looks like a consolidation phase which leads to plutocracy. Multi-platform builders might fall between the cracks. What do you think, @sheldrake ?
2 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
Philip Sheldrake
@sheldrake
When @df writes "a single smart wallet controlled by the canonical wallet for the chain will be used across all apps on the chain", one wonders if the wallet would be smarter than the corresponding person. The Cypherpunk’s Manifesto asserts: “Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.” It’s very hard to do that when you present one (or one dominant) wallet / identifier to the world.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Philip Sheldrake
@sheldrake
While I couldn't help but riff off "smart" here for comedic effect (no seriously, some of my jokes do actually work), it's critical to recognise that most people don't spend their lives thinking about the privacy ramifications of various technical protocols and architectures. It's on those of us who do.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
