I hate to be the party pooper but the only bullet point he should have discussed is whether Warpcast‘s monopolization of sending all the new messages to Farcaster flips FC from a supposedly decentralized protocol to a centralized one. The WC hub acts like a big HTTP REST API at the moment and Twitter was roughly as open as WC is today (with the caveat that WC‘s identity is decentralized, which makes my argument open for SOME push back). In any case, unless there is a good solution found for this, I don‘t think it makes sense to pay lipservice to all the other unnecessary features of the platform. If your hubs are better and guaranteeing the core product to remain openly available then DMs are not worth much of a concern is my opinion. IMO the idea of engineering is talking about the elephant in the room and making adjustments. The elephant is that Warpcast is closed source and that Dan thinks that the solution is for SOMEONE ELSE to decentralize FC. The elephant is also that WC is closed source for mission critical business reasons and so there are no plans of open sourcing it or giving it up. Not good leadership or stakes in the ground for engineering from Dan. Discussing core problems away means that they won‘t be solved by the WC engineers. Making it a mission critical issue makes people feel responsible and try to tackle the issue. Outcomes are never binary and maybe there is a third way where WC can remain closed source but the protocol can harden its guarantees. I just have such a problem with his leadership style as it is „below the bar.“ Maybe he was at Coinbase, whatever, what I‘m saying is the truth! He needs to lead through curiosity and vulnerability, not by trying to get his way!
Yah definitely sounds like it could be improved alot.