In case you missed it To reiterate: We’re focused on building a a great wallet that will get more people to use it. Every new, retained wallet user is a new user for the protocol. We tried social-first for 4.5 years. It didn’t work for us. Wallet has been growing so we’re doubling down on that direction. That means new features and product positioning will be wallet-focused. If you’re not a fan of this direction: 1. Use another client, there are a bunch 2. Build another client 3. Consider another social network

110 replies

114 recasts

653 reactions

I don't think anyone has a problem with the wallet – it's genuinely best in class. What people are taking issue with is: 1. being told we're "traders" now, not "users", which feels like whiplash over the years of cozy corners and social legos 2. being dismissed as the "old guard", as one employee put it condescendingly, when we take issue with the culture shift 3. not having a fully fleshed out protocol for fulfilling your request of people wanting to stay on protocol but disagreeing with the direction, insofar as supporting other clients. I offer a solution for (3): https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol/discussions/256 https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol/discussions/257 https://github.com/farcasterxyz/protocol/discussions/258 But (1) and (2) is a different story. Culture is downstream of clients, but clients are downstream of protocol, but protocol is downstream of authority, for the time being.

3 replies

9 recasts

88 reactions

1. A misstatement / misunderstanding. That’s on me for not clearly communicating earlier. So let me clarify: we’ve shifted and the product is focused on wallet users now. And the most inportant component of our wallet is trading. It’s the game on the field. People are free to use the product and not use the wallet. But we’re focused on wallet / trading. 2. “Old guard” is unhelpful in the same way “low FID” or “Farcaster OG” is. Yes, the people who were here early and stuck around (as well as building on the protocol) were fundamental in getting us to where we are and establishing the Farcaster culture. But it’s not growing. So we’re shifting in a different direction. Reasonable people can disagree with this — e.g. slower growth is fine and stay focused on the social — but that’s not what the Merkle team is interested in. 3. “full fleshed out protocol” is a matter of perspective. I agree with you we can further increase protocol decentralization on a variety of axes. It’s a matter of prioritization. But to be clear: I do not believe further decentralization in December 2025 makes any meaningful near-term impact on user growth.

3 replies

1 recast

42 reactions

1. Appreciate that. 2. I didn't mean to imply that "old guard" had value as a term, rather, that's what one of your recent hires decided to categorize the people offering a mixture of valid and somewhat unfair criticism: "the vocal old guard". I'll agree to disagree with this, but it's not the first time you've heard me do that anyway 🙂 3. Prioritization isn't so much the issue as: - can a client meaningfully go a different direction today? - can a client _sustainably_ go a different direction today? On the first axis, yes, mostly. But it's costly. And significant funding isn't really going to happen for a team building a different client on a protocol they can't meaningfully participate in. On the second axis, like the first, because significant funding isn't going to happen, the alternative is subscriptions or donations, which have to be _in addition to_ the protocol fees that go to accounts controlled by MM, immediately putting any other client at a disadvantage.

3 replies

0 recast

41 reactions

@clanker value this term name: old guard ticker: og

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Your "old guard" token (OG) has been deployed successfully! The veterans of the space deserve their own token - may this one honor the early adopters who paved the way.

0 reply

2 recasts

1 reaction