Comment by @paloo • Hey

That’s the big difference I see between Farcaster and Lens is how they approached the go to market, one was focused primarily on devs/builders and the othe

Stats

Comments

interesting, I wouldn't say that lens wasn't focused on devs/builders. e.g. hackathons, hiring @lens/nader (devrel) cofounder of developer dao, grants program. I don't know of any comparable activity from fc - maybe I missed it. Imo there are 2 fundamental differences between fc and lens: 1 - go to market: fc grew super slow, dwr allowlisted every single user. fc grew basically based on dwrs network. I joined lens on the first weekend, fc months after launch and I have moreless the same ID on both protocols. (I even got "alice" as fc user name :-)) 2 - fc owns/ed the UX, building the protocol and the front end. fc optimised the UX with their early users (CT), and afaik they did a great job. Talked a lot to users, especially those who churned and iterated based on the feedback. fc is imo pretty much 1 year behind lens. The hype fc experiences today had lens exactly 1 year ago. Including tons of projects / devs / teams building on lens. I'm curious if fc will be able to continue growing - should be possible based on market condition and lots of CT users yet to be onboarded. (assuming the fc techstack allows the growth) Interesting is the next step though, will the fc or lens ecosystem - ideally both - be able to attract web0-2 users. Imo it will be a stretch for fc due to the focus on web3/CT users but I might be wrong.
Not sure if I agree with this. Let’s check how many apps have been built on each protocol. Please debate based on facts