ewrewqr
@tewqerqw
3 replies
1 recast
20 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
1 reply
3 recasts
25 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
1 reply
0 recast
14 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
5 replies
0 recast
21 reactions
I can get the rebranding Warpcast to Farcaster. I’ve also often had to explain the difference to newcomers, which has somewhat slowed user growth.
I think the Farcaster protocol remains intact. Its rebranding doesn’t change the fact that it’s still an open, permissionless, programmable, composable, crypto-native, and sufficiently decentralized protocol with a thriving ecosystem. Most users won’t even notice the protocol, something social product geeks and Farcaster devs care about.
Unified product names can boost brand identity and user growth by avoiding confusion. eg. most users don’t realize Bluesky is built on the AT Protocol. As its user base grew, multiple clients/apps emerged, enriching the ecosystem. Growth of the main client benefits the protocol, but user growth needs to come first. So, Warpcast(Farcaster)’s rise doesn’t mean it’s replacing the whole Farcaster protocol.
In the end, rebranding may help, but other product-led protocol growth strategies are likely needed as well. 3 replies
2 recasts
21 reactions
2 replies
1 recast
10 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
6 replies
18 recasts
138 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
