I saw a note on nostr about their roadmap. I was interested to read about this because the first things I saw about this wallet back in November (#1274933) had really fun-looking style and branding.
Sadly, the roadmap looks like it is entirely slop (something Christoph acknowledges in the nostr note).
But what really bothers me is that there is precious little info in it.
Under Where we are now it says they are "learning, not shipping" and that they are using the Bitcoin Design Guide.
Then the roadmap says they are going to do a beta, then a launch on mainnet, and then build a community around the product.
The words no shit, Sherlock come to mind.
I think this is a case where using AI to maximize output really harms the project. It's clear that the project leaned heavily on AI in their design and branding, but I didn't mind that. It was kinda fun. But when they post a roadmap, I want some actual details...and this feels little like jerking potential users around. I would have put up with the slop if they had actually included actual details about the project and where it is going.
Basically, I learn that it's gonna be Bitcoin only and iOS only and that they don't really have a prototype yet. If they don't have much more detail than that, perhaps consider waiting to post a roadmap.
An iOS Ark wallet is a really cool idea, and if they make it feel cool and slick as their branding, I'm sure users would be attracted to it. Users want to feel cool and if they deliver on their look, Arké's users probably will feel cool. But dumping a slop roadmap like this doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, very understandable. I am very thankful you took your time to look through it, I honestly did not expect it to get much serious scrutiny at this point.
Goal with this first roadmap was to have something big picture up at all (rather than nothing). My sense is that many people who aren't builders don't have a good sense for the product phases and in which one a project might be at the moment. That might be too obvious for you, but I am not sure it is for everyone, based on the questions I got. I'll definitely keep your points in mind for upcoming updates.
If you'd like to test the app, you can sign up for TestFlight on the homepage. I'd love to hear what you make of it. It's gotten pretty stable with the latest bark beta release. Still a lot of small and medium things to work on, but it's getting there.
I love the style/look of the wallet. Very cool. Not being a builder myself, but I think I was hoping for some details about planned features or perhaps info about how you are going to fund development.
I'll check out the test flight version.
Gotcha. I am about 1-2 weeks away of finalizing the main feature set, before moving into a polish and outreach phase. I'll make sure to add some more details then.
As far as funding development, I'd really love to solve the challenge of finding a sustainable model. Right now, I am thinking in-app payments to unlock additional features, like batch payments, that heavy users will appreciate. Benefit of this approach (rather than transaction fees, for example) is that it would be a software services business, which comes with less regulatory scrutiny. Plus, fees would be more competitive and the app would be fully functional for casual users. I also like, for example, how Snapchat+ bundles a whole bunch of small features that just make the app a bit more fun and useful. That's the theory, let's see what happens when it collides with reality.
That sounds cool!
I am not a wallet developer, so please feel free to dismiss my ravings, but I have often wondered how a wallet would do if it simply charged for a download. This is a highly unpopular way of funding software, I think, and it comes with a host of problems, but I think I would pay for really good wallet software. I imagine such a thing could still be open source (only charge for binaries). It feels less messy to me than the freemium model or subscriptions. And I'm sure there are some legal problems that come with charging for software that do not exist when the software is provided for free.
I think that could work, with the right audience and feature set. When you get into complex multi-sig flows or larger amounts, then I think people/organizations would be comfortable paying for software that allows them to sleep well. Not sure if it would work for something like Wallet of Satoshi. Sparrow could probably pull it off.
But as you said, that comes with a lot of responsibility that is not coding. And that's a big step to take.
garbage in - garbage out
I have such roadmaps too, though a lot larger. They're responses to "plan this 20 pager of specs into work packages" prompts. Then per work package I trigger "plan this in detail", which I then review and edit. And when satisfied I send the whole package over: "execute this". And then I have massive review pressure until I am mm away from burn out at 5am in the morning. Then I take a day off and carry on. It's easy. Anyone can do this. If you want to. And know when to stop. And have an idea about how to do development.
The big difference though: I don't publish Claude's code.
Publishing this roadmap is what surprises me. I don't care much how they get to the stated goal, but I would think the goal of a roadmap on a website like this is to inform your users of your plans. There doesn't seem to be much information here.
Hmm I think in this case the goal of the roadmap is a search for validation (or recognition, lol, but let's stick with the sunny case.) This can be done but why would anyone want to read it? No one is going to invest in something that can be coded on a $20 plan either. Let's just hope someone reads it and asks some "why" for free and then everyone can move on.