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
I'm watching the video and it's confusing. Versioning is used to indicate the particular version we're talking about. But V2.0 in that video indicates the current version, but also future versions (?). Why isn't the current version v2.0, permissioned v2.1 and permissionless v2.2 or similar?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky pfp
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky
@tree
I think this is one of the things that doesn't help at all. I wrote about V2.0 back in 2021, and when V2.0 came out, people (rationally) expected all the decentralization that was promised to be there. But not really, because it's some OTHER V2.0. Very confusing.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky pfp
🌴tree.fail @ Bluesky
@tree
I think we all understand progressive decentralization, and we're used to it - but the WC route is very unclear and confusing. And that is perhaps the biggest problem. Not technology, but communication.
1 reply
1 recast
0 reaction
Pedro Gomes pfp
Pedro Gomes
@pedrouid.eth
The confusion is on the architecture The protocol itself doesn’t need to be decentralized because it’s transport-agnostic However the only transport supported by default is the Relay servers The Relay server is what needs to be decentralized This will happen seamlessly without client-side upgrades
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction