[cocktailpeanuts]

I see the “ipfs less” terminology as similar to the term “serverless”. Just like how serverless still has servers but the point is that you don’t have to maintain your own server, ipfs less does make sense in that you don’t have to run ipfs node to use it. But also just like how many people hate the term serverless, ipfs less will be hated by many as well. I guess at the end of the day what’s important is whether something provides value, and I think this is pretty cool technology in that sense. Just my two cents…

[3np]

The project looks useful and great, but I very much hate calling it "IPFS-less". Not only is it incorrect, it increases confusion regardless of how technical of a user you are. It is also unattractive - if it isn't IPFS (except it is), tell me what it is or does instead!

Really terrible branding; consider that the currently top-voted comment has read the site enough to formulate an alternative design and still has completely misunderstood how this relates to IPFS. The rest of the site is neat, though! I hope the author reconsiders!