@jonathancolton

This adds a layer I hadn't fully considered. I framed "sufficiently decentralized" as a negotiation between infinite and finite game pressures. You're pointing at something more structural: two node operators, PR approval to add a third. Worth sitting with. Dan was always clear about his framing, without growth, this is a science project. If you can't get PMF, the rest doesn't matter. That's not hidden; it's the stated logic. And maybe that's the tension we face building a permissionless and open internet. The race to PMF versus the openness that makes it unique and valuable in the first place. Finite game funding assumes you need speed and coordination to win. That assumption shapes what gets built and how, and may foreclose the very thing that made it worth building. Even with the capture risk you're describing, it's still easier, cheaper, and faster to build on Farcaster than the alternatives. That's the calculation most builders are making. Whether it's the right one depends on how that risk manifests over time, or doesn't. We don't know yet. Appreciate you pushing on this. Helps clarify where the real uncertainties live.

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions