Comment by @cesare • Hey

Thank you @lens/paulburke for sharing your thoughts. I feel you do have some valid questions here. I would like to contribute to this conversation on 2 fro

Stats

Comments

*"Securing funds cannot depends on just the network/protocol incentives or grants."* The problem is that there's no existing, proven ecosystem. Until there are users and money to be made, it's almost-entirely up to the protocol to provide the incentives. That's the only way to attract, and keep, builders. There are no profitable apps built on Lens. Do we really want to build a future dependent on special interest VC money, again? *"I am of the opinion that most successful products solve real life problems."* I don't believe that all products need to solve real-life problems, to be worth building. Some products are made for fun, expression, experience, and disruption. Those are the ones I'm more interested in, being money-native platforms unlock so many potentials; not the "decentralized" web 2.0 clones that manage to raise VC capital. We're not going to see anything interesting coming out of the clones. *"So yes, Lens Network aims at billion users, but to me it's aiming to solve problems we do experience now before they get unmanageable."* No question that Polygon PoS doesn't work long term, but PoS will eventually be replaced by zkEVM. The V2 LensHub pays an average of 0.03 $MATIC per transaction, over nearly 3 million transactions. While that is certainly not scalable, it comes out to a total of 873,311 $MATIC, while the treasury has already earned 1,072,074 $MATIC since turning on profile registration and Collect fees. So this doesn't really seem like a pressing matter, to me.
I think you are perfectly crystalizing the disconnect between Lens and Builders. To think that projects don't deserve funding if they don't solve "real problems" shows a deep misunderstanding of the role of Art, Culture, Music, Entertainment, gaming and those who dedicate their lives to make great work... Isn't what Lens is claiming to be building for? And answering Paul remarks with Darwinism is frustrating. Culture is not natural selection. @lens/paulburke is being nice by saying "builder fatigue" what he means @lens/cesare is that we make a choice every day to build on Lens and not other places... We choose to INVEST considerable amount of resources and time to build on Lens... Because we believe in a common future. @lens/paulburke is making an excellent point that we are not deploying Lens Network because we need to. Because the number of users to grow a creative market is counted in the millions. We can make a list of the Builders or big project that moved away from Lens but we are here still building... When a builder leaves it is not just its users that leaves.. it is all his future users as well and it will compound. Grants and Incentives shouldn't be the engine? There is not a large enough user base on Lens by several multiple to sustaintiate that.