Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Open to feedback on something we did recently to break trust. Either anon or public reply here or private in DC. I’ll only ask clarifying questions publicly and then respond in my video AMA.
15 replies
6 recasts
33 reactions
Steve
@stevedylandev.eth
I think a key word might be “perception.” Some users or devs perceive changes or how things are done as breaking trust when that may not have been the case or intent. Case in point, the whole channel squatting fiasco. The perception among a lot of users was Warpcast violating something that felt owned by the community, when in reality channels still belong to Warpcast and are not decentralized. Merkle has to make moves to build the network. Additionally, while Merkle had every right, the way it was taken with no messaging to the user has already been acknowledged as bad taste. Another example for me personally was FIP-171. The perception was that devs had some say in how the Farcaster network advances and changes, when in reality Merkle still has the final say. Switching to long casts probably makes more sense than 171, but pushing it through in less than two days made it feel like all the work and thought devs put into it didn’t actually matter. 1/2
1 reply
0 recast
12 reactions
Steve
@stevedylandev.eth
I would conclude all of this with the fact that I have really enjoyed building on Farcaster over the last year. The tech is really cool and there’s not another social platform where you can build tools and experiences like the one’s here on Farcaster. However the perceived reality is that it’s still early, and platform lock in is still a thing. There are aspects of a permissionless system, but at the same time there are parts that are unusable when you take that path. I love all the people I’ve been able to meet and learn from on Farcaster, but I’ve had to manage my expectations on what building on Farcaster looks like. 2/2
0 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
