"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. 

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?

You can talk to developers and users to figure it out