Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions

Zach Davidson pfp
Zach Davidson
@zd
This is a great thread more people should read + engage with. But the problem isn't about Warpcast being open vs. closed source. The problem is developer creativity. Sharing some thoughts below...
26 replies
43 recasts
125 reactions

Zach Davidson pfp
Zach Davidson
@zd
Most people on Farcaster today equate "client" with "Twitter clone." While cloning popular social media platforms seems like low-hanging fruit, it's a trap that limits Farcaster's potential. Building multiple iterations of the same product won't drive growth. Instead, we need to focus on creating new experiences on the protocol. Tavern is a good example — it utilizes the social graph for the one and only voice-first app on the network. This differentiation gives it staying power.
1 reply
2 recasts
15 reactions

Zach Davidson pfp
Zach Davidson
@zd
Some argue that Warpcast should be open source to drive protocol growth. But even if Warpcast's code was freely available, replicating it wouldn't significantly benefit the ecosystem. The real value lies in becoming “a default” for users in some niche, not in being one among many similar options.
1 reply
1 recast
11 reactions

Zach Davidson pfp
Zach Davidson
@zd
While Farcaster offers portable identity, that doesn't eliminate all friction between clients. Multi-homing costs (the ease of using multiple clients simultaneously) play a crucial role here: Similar clients (ex. multiple Twitter clones) have high multi-homing costs. Users are unlikely to use several nearly identical clients. Differentiated clients (ex., a Twitter-like client, a voice-first client, etc) have low multi-homing costs. Users are more likely to download/use multiple clients because each serves a distinct purpose.
1 reply
1 recast
8 reactions