I liked the post in principle but Jesse writes: > Since major social platforms cut API/platform access, bootstrapping a new app or marketplace demanded a miracle in distribution hacking. The rise of decentralized social protocols and wallet infrastructure might simplify things a bit. He then describes how Farcaster Frames are essentially un-ruggable windows into the Farcaster universe, quoting a cast from Corbin Page [1]. For comparison, here's Dan Romero's view on a protocol's value and how it is derived from its independent clients [2]: > A protocol is only as good as the number of independent and thriving clients, applications and businesses on it. A protocol with a lot of users but one dominant client is just an app with open APIs (for the time being). Practical alternative clients—not theoretical—matter for exit with interoperability. So, with Warpcast being closed source and hosting most Farcaster users, what now? Are frames ruggable or not? - 1: https://warpcast.com/corbin.eth/0xbd00d6c1 - 2: https://danromero.org/product-led-protocols.html
I think Frames are 100% ruggable because they're controlled by Merkle Manufactory (Warpcast client devs). If they decide to turn them off, they can do it. The difference, I guess, is that when social media doesn't work in an ad-based model (Facebook) but in a B2C SaaS model (Warpcast), the incentives are different, so rugging Frames wouldn't make that much sense. But I can imagine a scenario where some competing web3 social media (e.g., Lens) uses Frames to make successful vampire attacks on Farcaster users, which might threaten Merkle Manufactory business and change the incentives. Although I can imagine this kind of scenario, I think it's pretty unlikely since it's hard to "steal" a user who's already tied to FC via network effects :)
Plus then, a competing Farcaster client could add Frames since they might not care about Merkle that much (though there might be some social pressure)