Do you think that the interests of active participants in Farcaster (from MM and Neynar, to miniapp devs, to plain users) are aligned?

I think that it is very possible in one or two years, some of us may think that we have succeeded and others that we have failed, all at the same time.

Dad, geek, conversation liquidity provider. @l--o--l | @wdimapp

lemon3

That's the question. 

For me, decentralization and censorship resistance. If not, I'll consider it a failure, and I'll regret the time and energy I've spent.

Dad, geek, conversation liquidity provider. vrypan.net (home), @l--o--l (fun). devcoin:$lemon3

Top right is success case.

Bottom right is OK, too.

Top left is unlikely.

We're currently in bottom left. Need to dramatically increase the number of users to make it a success. Nothing else matters.

We have different success criteria. Thus, the misalignment on a bunch of priorities.

We have different success criteria. Thus, the misalignment on a bunch of priorities.

https://farcaster.xyz/dwr.eth/0x17697fbf

To be honest, I'm not so much concerned about priorities (ordering) as much as red lines.

Red lines don't matter if it's default dead.

Success does not matter either, if you cross the red lines :-)

The promise will exist until we have way more users. You're literally underwriting me and Varun. No one else. Always has been.

If we get a bunch more users and have product-market fit, our plan is to harden the protocol the various risks for capture.

Your hypothetical choice is a false one. The goal is to build a protocol. There's no clear path for 10000x user growth for a centralized thing or a decentralized thing. The user growth is not magically solved by centralization.

This is not an attack. But you have to understand that for as long as all we have is a promise, the ones (few? maybe) that care about it, will keep asking a) to make sure the promises is what they think it is, and b) that it still holds.

Think of it like this. The promise that Farcaster will remain open, and will become more decentralized, is a valuable asset of the project. It is the reason why some of us invested (time, energy, expertise, reputation) in it. It's the ROI we expect. We have to ensure it's there, and it's growing and the team is not messing up with it. So the question will come up again and again -even if you give a clear answer.

If our interests are misaligned, it's also important to know. If given the choice between 

1) no growth + decentralization vs 
2) 10000x growth + full centralization, 

you would pick #2, we should know.

This isn't productive.

Practically, decentralizing is increasing significantly with Coinbase Wallet adding support. 

Theoretically, you're very focused on non-issues that if started to become issues we could solve. There's no point in solving non-issues preemptively when we have dire, existential issues to solve.