gm,

left a really long comment yesterday about where I stand on L2 issuance: https://news.kiwistand.com/stories?index=0x67b4a43858a58c08a669e0ecd41fb4b213acec86097a10530708deba8190aad8d07b6b47#0x67b4d93108503ea261732ffbc6b3d6fbe5eadf58f5ab6252989ef85a2989231ac3c9755d

As for Kiwi we have made the NFT for free and we have anyways never tried to accumulate value in the NFT. Or let's say, it never worked.

Its purpose, in the earlier days was to make us some money, but honestly, we have given up on making money onchain as of now because we haven't managed to find a compelling offer to our users

Our current architecture is not ideal in terms of where we stand with L1 and L2. Layer 2s do not guarantee to make data retrievable in perpetuity.

However, as of now, L1 call data is also way too expensive and would cost between 1 and 5 USD per login per user, so we will remain on layer 2 for now.

Farcaster is solving this with the Snapchain. Users will be able to delegate application keys directly on the Snapchain. They are also moving away from L2s and the question is whether the L2 roadmap ends up really being a success as an extension of the Ethereum mainnet or whether it will turn out to be a very narrow scaling solution for trading and transacting.

I feel like after the L2 issuance debate becoming common knowledge we will also have to talk about the other weaknesses of L2s, namely, for example, some data not being exitable on the L2s, for example, when money is locked behind conditions, as is the case, from what I know in multi signatures and other applications.

I have said already on the Ethereum Magicians forum that we have to take the L2 scaling roadmap not literally as our solution because it is a narrow solution for ERC20s and for transacting temporarily

However, what we have done with blobs and the roll-up bridges can serve as a conceptual inspiration for how Ethereum can be used to scale specific use cases.

Instead of trying to monkey patch L2s for use cases that they've never been conceived for, why don't we celebrate architectures that enable new use cases but also are built in the periphery of Ethereum?

One such protocol is the set reconciliation that Kiwi News and Farcaster are using. We only need the key delegation and the membership inclusion to be stored on the L1 and this enables us store all ERC-712 signatures on a separate p2p network.

To me this is a conceptual expansion of the L1 scaling capability because priorly these messages would have had to be stored on L1 directly.

For me, with Layer 2s, we have demonstrated to be able to go from 0 to 1 with scaling a particular Ethereum use case. Now it is time to go from 1 to 2 by scaling other use cases.

In the meantime we also have to improve rollups. But we should also allow and enable other use cases to scale better on L1. How blobs enable greater L2 scaling we should also allow to enshrine other market mechanisms into the Ethereum L1 that help to scale other use cases aside from token trading.

If the Ethereum community manages such a transition gracefully, this would get me really excited about its vision of building a world computer.

***

To design Kiwi News further, I'd like to ask others what emoji reactions we should feature when responding to comments.

You can see the current selection. But when I reflect on my desire to react to certain types of comments, sometimes I notice that we lack some reactions compared to e.g. Telegram.

Approval:

- Maybe we have too many approval reactions, I'd categorize the following as different types of approvals

- Kiwi: "Cool you said something the Kiwi way"

- Fire: "Wow you did something really cool"

- 100: "I totally agree with what you just said, you're spot on"

Laughing:

- We currently only have the giggle emoji which is actually only useful when someone writes something snarky or ironic, which is probably also not the type of comment that we're looking to incentivize

Crying/Supporting

- Telegram, for example, also has a crying and a heart emoji that can be used to show support or share sadness. I don't think we have this at all

"I see you"

- The eyes emoji are interesting, but I think they're a more temporary reaction in my view. Usually, we try to use them to signify: "OK, I'll look into it"

- But that doesn't seem like something often useful.

Few ideas to fix this:

- First of all, it's actually really easy to change the default emoji reactions, so we could just change the current ones

- It's also easy to re-order them

- It's more involved to give many options for Emoji reactions, but it's not impossible

- The question remains: Which are the most popular emoji reactions? What's the methodology for finding them?

- Do other apps personalize the order of emoji reactions? I'm actually not sure...

E.g., my Whatsapp has:

1. Thumbs up: 👍

2. Heart: ❤️

3. Laughing with tears: 😂

4. Shocked mouth open: 😲

5. Crying (one tear): 😢

6. Praying: 🙏

Telegram:

1. Thumbs up: 👍

2. Fire: 🔥

3. Laughing: 😂

4. 100: 💯

5. Heart: ❤️

6. Crying a river: 😭

7. Star struck: 🤩

Are yours different? A method would be, if we find that TG has the same emojis for all users, to just copy them. What do you think?

My WhatsApp I have exactly the same emoji reactions as you.

On Telegram I have:

1. Handshake 🤝

2. Fire: 🔥

3. Thumbs up: 👍

4. Heart: ❤️

5. Laugh: 😄

6. Thinking: 🤔

7. Crying: 😢

It seems like Telegram optimizes the preview based on how often you use certain emojis.

It seems like Telegram optimizes the preview based on how often you use certain emojis.

OK, good to know.

Do you agree that we should optimize our emoji reactions to include more diverse types of reactions?

Yes, I think WhatsApp default ones would be good.