Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
woj
@woj.eth
degen and ham chains were mistakes and they set the whole farcaster ecosystem back im posting this after reaching out to @jacek and @deployer privately, but since they both answered that they have no plans on sunsetting the chains, i want to give a heads up to all other teams building their economies on farcaster: don't launch you own chains 1. fc ecosystem only has a chance to work if there is a lot of liquidity in one place 2. separate chains fragment the liquidity and only benefit the passive token holders (less sell pressure) and mev bot operators (arbitrage between chains and pools). actual users pay in UX, mev and fees 3. devs who want to launch integrations with these projects are fucked because most infrastructure providers don't support these small chains im building supercast wallet and it's beyond frustrating to see how close we were to having something truly great and how much harder it is to build a good UX on top of these projects because they selfishly decided to launch their own chains
75 replies
31 recasts
247 reactions
Will Papper
@will
I of course have a point of view here, but only because it comes from a deeply-held belief that communities should be able to own their chains. On the integrations side, people were saying the same thing about L2s being more difficult to integrate than ETH Mainnet. Ultimately, fee reductions and the subsequent user demand led the infrastructure providers to add multi-chain support, but it assumed a few large L2s. Now that we're seeing the proliferation of many L2s and L3s, infrastructure providers will need to evolve again. Just like how L1 -> a few big L2s required some work to operate smoothly, a few big L2s -> many L2s and L3s will require work as well. So where does the user demand come from? In my opinion, it's things that are impossible on large L2s. Ham putting FID data onchain is the perfect example. Only a tiny fraction of the world is onchain. If we don't pursue L2s and L3s, we will hold back the space in its onchain potential. Moving more communities onchain is why many L2s and L3s must exist.
1 reply
2 recasts
8 reactions
Will Papper
@will
On the fragmented liquidity side, these arguments were also made about L2s. If a use case needs deep liquidity, it can still attract that via sequencing or bridging mechanism designs. Rewards can go a long way in making these use cases attractive. L2s found the same playbook here, with Optimism directly incentivizing bridging for example. A "many L2s and L3s thesis" already has a precedent to follow, with Superchain making shared liquidity easier every day. Worst case, as is true of L2s right now, you can always get deep liquidity from the underlying layer. In the long term, apps will be able to stand on their own without requiring deep liquidity. But in the near term, this will look pretty similar to how L2s look today, with the Superchain as an important solution.
0 reply
1 recast
9 reactions
