"Worse is better" is a good principle when thinking adding to the Farcaster protocol. 

Too often, the discussions veers to making the feature more generic to support hypothetical use cases. What often happens is: 

1. The extra feature gets low usage
2. Every developer building a client now has a tax 
3. Some developers don't pay the tax, and ignore the feature

The feature isn't well supported, and no one uses it, and just creates a bunch of ongoing debt for everyone. 

The goal for every feature should be adoption - if no one can guarantee that the feature will be adopted after it is implemented, we probably shouldn't ship it.

"Worse is better" is a good principle when thinking adding to the Farcaster protocol. 

Too often, the discussions veers to making the feature more generic to support hypothetical use cases. What often happens is: 

1. The extra feature gets low usage
2. Every developer building a client now has a tax 
3. Some developers don't pay the tax, and ignore the feature

The feature isn't well supported, and no one uses it, and just creates a bunch of ongoing debt for everyone. 

The goal for every feature should be adoption - if no one can guarantee that the feature will be adopted after it is implemented, we probably shouldn't ship it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better

Technowatermelon. Elder Millenial. Building Farcaster. 

nf.td/varun

You only know adoption after the fact. How do you then know what an extra feature is?

This is the alt account of Sister Hazel. Writings at https://powerlaw.systems. Building https://testnet.uvio.network. 

You can talk to developers and users to figure it out

Did you have situations in which this lead you down the wrong path anyway? How often do you still end up with more or less adoption respectively? Is it 50/50, is it 1/10?