To whom it may concern,
It was a fascinating week on the hunt for the decentralized social media to say the least. The anonymous nature of the CAW liquidity and its deep exchange connections have made fertile ground for competing projects attempting to will the masses behind their vision for the bags locked away in the staking contracts. Is it a reserve currency? is it a payment network? is it a decentralized social media? is it a quick NFT flip? The cawmunities attention decides its deployment, and, at least amongst the english speaking Corvids, they are circling over decentralized social media.
The main spots of community engagement were around the tokenomics of the username burn system and the implementation of a global stakepool system. In regards to the former, I see attempts to balance the desires to bag go up and front run usernames dns style, and the desire to retain a degree of affordability for new users down the line. I think there are uncertainties over the ultimate fate of an account. In a similar way that a UTXO going through a criminals BTC address can devalue that coin relative to others, the history of username posts will likely do the same. As its all permanent, and the ‘overton’ window of acceptable opinion shifts, a degree of ephemerality is likely to exist in the username space. For example, in 40 years when the AI has physical bodies, one will not want to be walking around with a large history of anti-ai rhetoric on chain, will they? It is for this reason that I foresee many more usernames to be available for creation, at a relatively cheap price, or else a situation arises where new comers don’t have a buy into the system, and thus make their own (hello reason many cypherpunks made crypto in response to late game fiat currency dynamics, we dont need to proverbially eat the children if we dont have to).
The stakepool system was also discussed at length by the community. As the token is already deployed, it will be impossible to force users to contribute a portion of every caw to feed back into the global stake pool. It is possible to make an optional global stake pool, and have community members choose between versions of a caw-network that have it with or without, but enforcing it requires a rewriting of the original ERC20 contract, which, at least from my perception, seems palatable to the cawmunity.
I have been making good ground in the area of chaining signatures together to decrease gas costs. The first implementation is a system where users can chain Tips together towards a users nft by passing an EIP-712 message around. They timelock their CAW for a deadline as a deposit, pin tips to a user in a message until the deadline is up, wheretofore that user can collect all the CAW from all those signatures in one contract call. This just seems the tip of the iceberg in what is possible, and future research areas include trying to break the deadline requirement with a prisoners dilemma styled precommitment scheme, exploring merklized chains, and even attempting to provide enhanced username privacy features based on ZK-snarks.