@nickysap

Great perspective. Mostly agreed. I’ve often felt the protocol would work best as a public good. Unfortunately the way the network topology is structured, there are considerable challenges in achieving this. From the most basic PoV, we would need more Snapchain operators to sufficiently decentralize and protect the network. As it stands, there are two node operators (Merkle & Neynar). @cassie has a PR in to add a third node operated by Quilibrium but this demonstrates the flaw in the public good perspective. Network effects can’t be achieved when one party controls who else can operate nodes. Imagine if every bitcoin miner had to submit a PR to the core repo to come online. This then raises the question: why would you spend resources building on something that still doesn’t guarantee platform capture is not possible? The core dev team has clearly stated they have no intention of focusing on this, pivoting harshly in another direction. “Trust me bro” is no longer a logical or even viable option. I’d love to keep building here but I’m hesitant because it doesn’t feel like decentralization is being treated as a genuine feature. In fact at times it feels like it’s seen as a liability.

2 replies

0 recast

6 reactions