Cassie Heart (cassie)

The moment has arrived. https://hypria.xyz

• 257 replies
• 1113 recasts
• 2251 reactions

Decentralization requires open participation. You cannot even begin to act like decentralization is federating one other team and calling it a day. You played absolute back and forth games with Q team, rapidly switching to "we'll add your node", "we won't add your node", over and over, while trying to make it seem from public replies that I am somehow confused, and have no reason to be upset. You told me today now to just go ahead and fork. I will. And by your actions, you've forced us to a do a hard fork. Receipts below.

• 277 replies
• 16 recasts
• 578 reactions

Hey folks, I get there's a lot of different things happening all at once (not to mention eth denver!), so let's talk about it. This Sunday, at 3pm PST/6pm EST/11pm UTC, we're going to host a space on Twitter to hash out the upcoming fork, what it means, why it's happening, when it's happening, and how to get involved. Farcaster is what it is because of us, so the more, the better! https://x.com/i/spaces/1yGBeMMVEAoKN?s=20

• 169 replies
• 31 recasts
• 539 reactions

Open question of governance in crypto – Generally, there exists three different kinds of actors in the space: protocol nodes, clients and apps, and users. Sometimes people fall into all three categories, but you can see a strong example of the distinction in projects like ethereum, farcaster, and solana. When it comes to governance, approaches like QV or direct token = vote creates problematic dynamics with sybiling, but trying to resolve those creates a separate problem of not having enough skin in the game. Has anyone tried tricameral governance in crypto? e.g. node operators as a "senate", app developers as a "house", and users as a third institution like the other two (with passage of proposals/changes required to be accepted by all three units without further amendment)

• 101 replies
• 11 recasts
• 595 reactions