@cassie

1. Appreciate that. 2. I didn't mean to imply that "old guard" had value as a term, rather, that's what one of your recent hires decided to categorize the people offering a mixture of valid and somewhat unfair criticism: "the vocal old guard". I'll agree to disagree with this, but it's not the first time you've heard me do that anyway 🙂 3. Prioritization isn't so much the issue as: - can a client meaningfully go a different direction today? - can a client _sustainably_ go a different direction today? On the first axis, yes, mostly. But it's costly. And significant funding isn't really going to happen for a team building a different client on a protocol they can't meaningfully participate in. On the second axis, like the first, because significant funding isn't going to happen, the alternative is subscriptions or donations, which have to be _in addition to_ the protocol fees that go to accounts controlled by MM, immediately putting any other client at a disadvantage.

3 replies

0 recast

46 reactions