@luciano
“You can argue with the direction, but I don't know that you can argue with a founder who spent half a decade on one approach, acknowleged it wasn't working, and tried something else instead of pumping a token and heading for the exits.
I'd call this integrity by crypto standards and, frankly, by most standards.”
Although I generally agree with @joanwestenberg.eth’s writings here, especially on why the reason to stay is messier for most, I think this framing is actually detrimental to the future of farcaster
First, I disagree with the premise that it wasn’t working since it only stopped working when dan chose to stop doing the things that ‘don’t scale’ and made very particular hires which drove away the core user base
Second, if the goal was to decentralize the network a token was inevitable. We shouldn’t be celebrating dan’s inability to find larger pmf, to scale and a useful token mechanism to properly incentivize the network. This is also to say we should be celebrating what dan and co have built essentially for free.
We need to be far more honest about the past if we want to pave a better future for farcaster.