Why are you talking about me instead of why I am wrong?
Was a bit lazy on my part so sorry about that.
The point was that your argument suggests a set of assertions that need to be satisfied for success, without really justifying why they are required and ignoring the fact that if we can exist without them, then perhaps we don’t need them or there are simpler ways around them.
Whilst ignoring that the simplicity of the thing is why has led to the adoption and desire of people to build on it or that it is a live and developing protocol with an active ecosystem.
In short I think it’s an over complication of the problem / solution to add “more in theory” instead of shipping and see it develop in practice.
Hence the curve reference which my throwaway meme version.
Although it’s a response to a short screenshot so probably lacking nuance.
The point was that your argument suggests a set of assertions that need to be satisfied for success, without really justifying why they are required and ignoring the fact that if we can exist without them, then perhaps we don’t need them or there are simpler ways around them.
Whilst ignoring that the simplicity of the thing is why has led to the adoption and desire of people to build on it or that it is a live and developing protocol with an active ecosystem.
In short I think it’s an over complication of the problem / solution to add “more in theory” instead of shipping and see it develop in practice.
Hence the curve reference which my throwaway meme version.
Although it’s a response to a short screenshot so probably lacking nuance.
1