Would global message ordering make granular signer permissions more feasible?

iirc message ordering was a factor? maybe I’m thinking about something else

Technowatermelon. Elder Millenial. Building Farcaster. 

nf.td/varun

I'm eth newbie..just learning
(working on @farcaster)

terminally.online

cypherpunk wannabe, engineer working on @frames /open-frames /opencast
https://stephancill.co.za create stories at https://stories.steer.fun

the most basic would probably be to only give an app permission to write messages of a specific type

What’s something you’d build if you had this?

This has always been buildable, just avoided the complexity for people to have to reason about the nuances between letting someone write casts vs change follows

> This is basic (and frankly expected) security functionality imo

Its not obvious to me why this is the case. Can you explain with an example?

This is basic (and frankly expected) security functionality imo

I think I was conflating signer permissions with signers going onchain in my question. With strong ordering guarantees signers could be stored off chain on hubs right?