Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky pfp
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky
@tree
WalletConnect being OFAC-complain has one advantage they have freed up space in the market for someone to create a decentralized alternative :)
2 replies
1 recast
5 reactions
Pedro Gomes pfp
Pedro Gomes
@pedrouid.eth
Following recent additional technical measures and updated guidance, we can confirm that we will re-enable access to Russia and non-Russian-occupied Ukraine, effective within the next 24 hours. https://twitter.com/WalletConnect/status/1720524039196680246
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky pfp
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky
@tree
I've been supporting Walletconnect since maybe 2019, educating hundreds of people in our @gweicz community about WC since then. But this feels like a stab in the back to me. If I knew you had no problem being OFAC complain, I would never have promoted this.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Pedro Gomes pfp
Pedro Gomes
@pedrouid.eth
I’ve been building the protocol since 2018 and I’m really glad that you have been a supporter since 2019 It’s important to note that OFAC compliance does not affect the protocol development But right now the network is operated only by our company and we must comply to the law where it’s headquartered …
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Pedro Gomes pfp
Pedro Gomes
@pedrouid.eth
The project has always been open source and we never published with restrictive licenses Additionally the protocol development is specified for anyone to implement Currently implemented in several languages: - JS - Swift - Kotlin - Dart - C# Check out our protocol specs below https://specs.walletconnect.com …
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Pedro Gomes pfp
Pedro Gomes
@pedrouid.eth
We have been very transparent about our current centralization and described our progressive roadmap to decentralize Our team keeps championing standards that enable the best UX on Ethereum and broader Web3 Invite anyone to watch our latest talk in Paris https://www.youtube.com/live/WxTlmpjuj1o?si=m9xo8i0fDUbTD3sD
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky pfp
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky
@tree
Thanks, now you've actually hinted at the problem - you keep talking about decentralisation, how you want it open - but the reality is different. I don't know if you had OFAC blocks there in 2019, but I sincerely hope not. But then that means the situation has gotten WORSE, not better.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky pfp
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky
@tree
I partially understand the fear of for example Uniswap when they block their frontend because they are the DeFi protocol in which the money is locked. But WC is just a message broker. I sign something in my wallet and WC just delivers it to the dApp (and their frontend can block me by itself).
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky pfp
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky
@tree
The Uniswap frontend is the app and the Uniswap protocol is the protocol. The split is clear, if the frontend blocks me, I use another one and everything is fine - because the protocol is decentralized. But with WC, this is unclear - it pretends to be a protocol, but works as an app.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky pfp
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky
@tree
The basic difference I am trying to point out here - with Uniswap it is clear how I can use protocol and all its liquidity (network effect) in a decentralized way. With WC, I don't know how to do this. Looks like I don't have a choice.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky pfp
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky
@tree
The only option I see is that I can take the WC code and create my own separate WC network, but it won't work with any existing dapps. That's kind of like creating your own clone of Uniswap, where it will just be your liquidity.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction