balajis
@balajis.eth
I love the fact that we now have at least two great clients for an open social protocol. This is something we’ve wanted in tech for 20 years and at Coinbase for ~10 years. Big props to @jesse.base.eth and @dwr.eth for making Base and Farcaster happen. But I can’t yet quickly parse what parts of the UX are shared at the Farcaster protocol level, vs which pieces are unique to the Base app or the Farcaster app. We’ll need new UX conventions for that.
10 replies
13 recasts
172 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Good feedback. Here's a quick summary: Part of the protocol All accounts (FIDs), usernames, profiles, follows, casts, reactions and external address verifications are part of the protocol. This allows for everything to be independently verified via cryptographic signatures. This means that all distribution is shared. Additionally, mini apps are a standard / spec that Farcaster clients implement the same way and use Farcaster accounts (FIDs) to cryptographically sign when doing auth. *** What's not currently part of the protocol: 1. Direct messages — different approaches 2. Channel metadata — all the content is on protocol, but the settings for channels are not 3. Collectibles vs. coins — those are client experiments specific for now
5 replies
1 recast
45 reactions
balajis
@balajis.eth
Maybe the right way to factor this is via app tabs. So there are functions in some tabs that use the protocol features. And differently colored tabs that are app-specific features. DMs can be decoupled in this way, at least. Anything that uses app-specific features would go in an app tab rather than a protocol tab. In a toy example below, red outlined icons could be protocol tabs and the remainder would be app tabs. @jesse.base.eth
1 reply
0 recast
16 reactions
MUUK
@muuk
Agree
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
