I’m using Argent and Braavos, both give diffexprerience, Argent feels more modern, and Braavos feels more comfortable to safe money in terms of security.
Have you saw this, Eli? As an altvm and native account abstraction, Fuel is able to leverage great wallets like Rabby(.io) to interact with the chain, it could bring more users.
Good read!
Glad this is been talked about.
I am no expert in this, just sharing my thoughts
TLDR:
To your post
You are sadly missing the point moody is making.
Users using your tech when it was slow and early doesn’t necessarily equate to chasing quick profits there was solana, base, blast, manta etc to chase the quick buck.
I also disagree with your allusion to memecoins except you believe strk is the memecoin.
They was no such opportunity on starknet to make those crazy (10 to 2000)xs.
moody is concerned about user growth, user sentiment and the prevailing narrative which would in turn will hurt the developers you seem to be prioritizing above users.
Saying things like “focus on building” doesn’t help the situation, and can only be akin to building temples without devotees to use them.
Like moody said, users will suffer worse ux for opportunities.
The provisions were flawed, it couldn’t even acknowledge repeated early users of their bridge.
Many users like me have abandoned both argent and braavos wallets despite the account abstraction breakthrough. Think about that!
Respectfully,
not an E-beggar.
ser starknet stands with on-chain games and for the grants
we’re building quadratic funding on Starknet which is a public good project on Starknet it help the Starknet builders to build more cool dApps on Starknet
Several month ago, when I was transferring ETH on Binance, I would choose STARKNET, because the gas fee is much lower. Then a month later, I found that the time taken for a transfer becomes 12 hours on average. Then a month later, I found that I do not see STARTKET on the list of supported chain on Binance. That is the problem! Keep low gas fee, and maintain reasonable processing time!! If the user needs to wait more than 10 minutes to have their ETH transfer approved, then who will use it anyway?
Some Ideas for Improving Starknet Provisions Airdrop, Following @elibensasson X Post
1. Create more complex criteria to reward loyal users:
2. Implement a reward system based on:
3. Bonus for vStark holders:
4. Bonus for those who kept more than x% (TBD) of their previous airdrops (Ekubo, Nostra, ZkLend):
5. Penalty for those who quickly sold their previous airdrops:
6. Identify and exclude multi-accounts:
7. Allocate a portion of the airdrop to projects for redistribution:
8. Limit the maximum allocation to five times the minimum allocation:
Summary of the proposal: These ideas aim to create a fairer and more thoughtful token distribution system, rewarding loyal and active users while discouraging opportunistic behavior. By directly involving projects in the token redistribution and setting limits on maximum allocations, it is possible to ensure better identification and reward of genuine contributors to the Starknet ecosystem.
Sir @elibensasson
Regarding your recent post on X.
my simple submission and hope would be that you want to turn durable users who believe your product into stakeholders while trying to correct the first provision if need be.
The answers lies in your strk / vstrk holders.
dig further:
how many of them received / retained the provisions?
how many of them did not receive provisions? why didn’t they? 
(0.005eth cutoff, LP)
look at the metrics
who were the early users? Are they still using the chain now when there is no hype? Did they receive provisions or not?
more engagement
starknet id profile? starkfighter ?, Argent quest?, Bravoos journey?
These two wallets created a lot of hype / marketing for your product.
I might be wrong.
cheers!
make starknet community great again.
For now, I’m betting my future on Starknet. However, I am seeing a massive financial loss of -85%. It seems like there is no thought at all about early investors. Incurring financial loss means not being able to afford to wait for the future. If you do not immediately think about a plan for investors and
Hello everyone, it is with great pleasure that I make my first post on this forum. I’m a die-hard fan of STARK technology and the Starknet ecosystem: made up of incredible developers who are available to develop this technology to its limits.
However, I think that this ecosystem suffers from the classic problem of some traditional companies: they develop a fantastic, technologically superior product but… are overtaken by the timing of entry into the market of competing products with inferior technology but with enormous marketing and distribution capacity. .
It is a fact that the comments on X about Starknet are nasty in that they are focused on the airdrop mechanics (not at all effective) and the appreciation (or in this case devaluation) of the $STARK token, without any consideration for the potential of this technology.
The fact is that Starknet is brilliant in technological development but mediocre in marketing the brand, its technological developments and the factors that differentiate it from competing ecosystems.
It is frustrating that some ecosystems present some small technological developments with fanfare and fireworks, when compared to the technological quality of Starknet, that is manifested on several fronts.
All these technological developments (which I would call STARKNET MAGIC) must be communicated to the respective communities (Ethereum and Bitcoin) in a way that develops enthusiasm for developers but, above all, users with strong marketing (read strong as different, simple, effective) that is capable of transmitting the potential of this technology to a wide audience).
We cannot forget that Starknet took a completely opposite decision to the current leaders in the rollup stacks market (Optimism and Arbitrum) by introducing a new language (CAIRO) that was more efficient but initially incompatible with EVM (before the implementation of Kakarot) which resulted in a barrier to the development of liquidity bridges, on-off ramps, dapps, etc.
For this reason, Starknet has no other solution than to develop an aggressive strategy to attract developers and users.
Now you will ask, what is the best strategy? What can we offer differently? My answer is simple: analyze the competition, the various programs implemented, select the most effective ones, introduce a new element and implement with full force.
There is a huge range of solutions: retroactive airdrops (proportional to the time invested in the ecosystem for developers and users), Retroactive Public Goods Funding (a la Optimism), retroactive financing, Sequencer revenue sharing, Gas Monetization, etc.
Reinforcement: Starknet needs to make up for lost time and shorten the distance with its most direct competitors and this is only possible with a more aggressive strategy in establishing partnerships with reference developers, attracting users and liquidity.
There is no need to think too complicated. We need to get more users to have STRK in the 2nd distribution.
Long term use of multiple dapps in the Starknet network is sufficient.
I believe allocating airdrops to the top 5,000 GitHub repositories was a misstep. While recognizing open-source contributions is valuable, limiting it to such a narrow group alienated many deserving contributors and long-term supporters of the Starknet ecosystem. A more inclusive approach would have better reflected the broad, community-driven spirit that we’re striving for.
As we look toward the future, could you provide any insights or timelines regarding Provision 2? It’s important for the community to understand when they can expect the next steps and how they will be involved moving forward.