Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
sean š¹
@swabbie.eth
just an observation on $ANON lore ā it seems like there was some frustration around its inception (the timing, distribution, etc) but let's be honest ā $ANON could *only* ever be created anonymously and fully distributed immediately. for its creation to be planned by a known individual would destroy the narrative. this was the only way. i'm sure @supercast can have its own token for its members at some point, but the true $ANON could only ever exist anonymously.
3 replies
3 recasts
5 reactions
accountless
@accountless.eth
semi anonymous bc itās not anonymous
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
accountless
@accountless.eth
riffing: super anon is pseudo anon and thatās ok. supercast keeps logs and can read logs; they say they wonāt unless required; butā¦ supercast team, knows others here on socials, your peers and friends and competitors, etc bc we are all one community. this makes it even less pseudo and raises risk. this isnāt the same trust you would have with letās say facebook. with Facebook if they saw your data, you wouldnāt be worried that Zuckerberg would tell your ex partner. so there is a sword w many edges here
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Chainleft
@chainleft
wait I thought there was zk-tech behind superanon account. they can really see who's written?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
accountless
@accountless.eth
yes. they can. this doesnāt mean they will. it just means they can. so imo it changes the behavior
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
sean š¹
@swabbie.eth
https://warpcast.com/woj.eth/0x7f9f65f9
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
accountless
@accountless.eth
i donāt think woj would do something shady. i hesitate to say ātrustā bc thatās not a word i use. i feel comfy tho. i just wonāt use super anon for something id really post anonymous
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
accountless
@accountless.eth
https://warpcast.com/accountless.eth/0x697cd070
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
