“Conflating Farcaster 'the protocol' with Farcaster 'the social media platform built on top of the protocol' limits people's perspective on what can be built on Farcaster.”

Maybe it’s just the case that we want farcaster to be something it’s not

Distilling our past convos on this, something I’d add:

I sincerely believe Farcaster *wants* to be as decentralized as they can be… while still also becoming relevant and being used (otherwise, it’s decentralized for nothing)

If anything, MM’s mis-steps so far have been doing things that go for decentralization too soon, at the expense of growth

The reason this matters is that I believe they intend to make FC the protocol we all want to it be (multi client, decentralized, permissionless) whenever the app achieves momentum on user growth.

I think the complaints come from a good place and are valuable regardless of your focus

There is a conflict between building a protocol and seeking PMF at the same time. It seems kind of impossible to do both

Agree on all. By decentralising this early they made their already impossible job twice has hard

I wouldn’t bet that they would have done it again if they knew they’d end up on mini apps as the developer growth vector

playing /bracket, assisting /bracky, talking /greatbooks

Agree on all. By decentralising this early they made their already impossible job twice has hard

I wouldn’t bet that they would have done it again if they knew they’d end up on mini apps as the developer growth vector

https://farcaster.xyz/stephancill/0x8e3ef694