JR ↑
@juli
Privy (State of the Art wallets) was an unlock for individual App builders but builders only enabling new wallet creation sets back (permissionless) crypto (adoption) - as users can‘t enjoy & hence understand the benefit of composable apps & moving seamlessly around crypto.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
pol
@pol
Founder dilemna - you want to benefit from others' liquidity & onramping but you don't want others to benefit from yours. Pretty sure Privy would not have worked as well with a composable approach.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
JR ↑
@juli
I guess that’s half of the truth. (Some founders prob don’t mind offering value to other builders, rather want their users to get best experience.) In 2022 there was no good wallets, onboarding flows etc. and Privy solved a hard industry problem (UX) & apps were ok to give up some user composability for UX. In 2025 the main industry problem is likely less UX but rather fragmentation and Privy adds to it - while it still offers great value to apps & new users.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
pol
@pol
Would love to have @henri or @segall's take on that! My guess is that if you have the choice as a founder, you have a very strong incentive not to share the cake with others (even if I would morally prefer the opposite). Hence decentralisation actually.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Max
@segall
Super challenging tradeoff space that we'll continue iterating in You can't have secure interoperability without very explicit confirmations and things that are essential for keeping assets safe but that create UX friction Some onchain apps are unwilling to compromise even the slightest bit on UX, so app specific fully embedded experience are right and drive massive adoption Privy unlocks both (Abstract as a great example of the former and Rodeo for the latter). We won't stop iterating until we deliver the superpowers of onchain interop for mainstream users though!!!!
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Henri Stern Ꙫ
@henri
There is a lot more to do here on the tradeoff scheme -- but it's true that not defaulting to the in-your-face modal of traditional wallets opens up the design space in a major way at a cost. Once opened, devs (understandably) don't want to go back so up to us to keep pushing what's possible here!
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
pol
@pol
Thanks @segall @henri for sharing your thoughts in the thread! On another note, it might be interesting to think of this whole topic as a conversion funnel. Adoption, by definition, happens within a given application - let’s say Application A. Application A can onboard: - users who are not yet onchain: for them, the lack of composability doesn’t impact their experience - existing onchain users: I’d assume they’re more willing to tolerate some friction Then comes Application B - applying the same logic, the new users from Application A are now existing onchain users, and thus more likely to accept some friction. If that’s true, then there’s no scenario where composability is actually critical to the adoption of any single app.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Henri Stern Ꙫ
@henri
I think this is right. But while not critical it is essential to seeing these primitives play out fully so certainly a big topic!
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
