[code-blooded]

The thing with VC-founded projects is that there's some kind of rug-pull, ads, privacy violation or "feature enhancing" subscription likely coming and as users we should know.

I don't really like services that stress how idealistic they are when this is the upcoming reality.

Better charge money for services or if you're truly idealistic start it as a non-profit. At the very least communicate what's the monetization plan.

[Certhas]

The big question is (and I don't know the answer, so not rhetorical) whether the protocol being open can be sufficient to prevent the rug-pull from being too bad...

[bluehatbrit]

If their technology choices are holding them back it just means the product becomes more turbulent as they desperately thrash for a way to make more money.

A protocol isn't a good enough reason for investors not getting their payday. They'll just force aggressive and reckless changes to see a return.

The only way this kind of thing works is if profit isn't in the equation, or the easiest path to profit lines up with what's best for the customers.

This is why I'm skeptical about bluesky in general. Despite the protocol, it's incredibly centralised. If they wanted to make money it won't be long before they start putting up the walls around their garden. The same thing applied here as well, if investors demand a return the open protocol usage will shrink or become less open.

[tardedmeme]

Bluesky proves it can't. So does every proprietary blockchain, e.g. Terra.

[embedding-shape]

When did Bluesky rug-pull? Seemingly they seems hellbent on making it harder for themselves to rug-pull, at least judging by the developments of the protocols and ecosystem so far.