vrypan |--o--| pfp
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
The Farcaster ecosystem largely revolves around two main providers: Merkle Manufactory (MM) and Neynar. Both offer services that span the full stack, from low-level infrastructure (like Snapchain nodes) to end-user clients and miniapp tooling. I consider node improvements, specs, and documentation part of their offering in this context. This creates a resource allocation dilemma. As a startup with limited time and engineers, you naturally focus where ROI is highest. Right now, that seems to be at the top of the stack: ROI = end user growth. But this focus narrows innovation. While low-level infra allows many creative paths, the higher up you go, the fewer options you have. MM and Neynar appear to prioritize miniapps, wallets, and small UX features (like profile banners or max number of cast embeds). This is also reflected in the uneven documentation quality (ex., there is a dedicated website for miniapp development, 99% of the documentation is about using js/ts, the migration from hubble to snapchain is hardly reflected in the docs, and so on). The result: it’s increasingly difficult to build anything truly new. If you’ve tried using the low-level stack, you’ve likely hit countless friction points: a small detail here, a small detail there, a change that has not reached the docs yet, FIPs that would have made your life much easier but are of low priority, design decisions optimized for quick user growth and not DX. I know the answer: demand is king. I generally agree. But, maybe user growth is in places not on the path already laid out. And my concern is that diverging from this path, is getting harder and harder.
10 replies
6 recasts
50 reactions

Tony D’Addeo pfp
Tony D’Addeo
@deodad
you are right that we are focused on the app layer and user growth but otherwise the picture is much more nuanced than the one you paint there has been huge investment in the protocol itself - those “small UX” features were part of an initiative to bring in 1.2m in independent funding for the protocol - snapchain is a huge huge investment and piece of infrastructure to make the protocol work, fine to nitpick about sequencers and docs but without this stride we wouldn't have a scalable decentralized network to nitpick - auth addresses are a huge step to making great UX across multiple clients achievable - weve grown the only decentralized mini app ecosystem of its kind (yes those dreaded manifest files, would’ve been a lot easier to just let people submit that data to our database) which has generated significant outside demand for protocol data and farcaster identities (~100k SIWF sessions per day) - every docs site we’ve touched this year has significantly improved from our baseline not saying there aren’t an innumerable things to improve but I reject the characterization that we've just phoned it on the protocol side of things
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

vrypan |--o--| pfp
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
Yes, it's not black and white (and I tried to illustrate this). Regarding snapchain, yes and no. Snapchain's design decisions were dictated mostly by the goal to grow users 1000x. Could have been 1000 other things, like "be able to run a hub anywhere", or "ensure hubs can operate even if not connected to the internet for a long period", or "provide incentives to run hubs" -just pointing out some exotic examples that would have lead to totally different designs.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction