The more I observe Nostr, the more I think it was a mistake to make Twitter clones the first services to launch.

It's an identity and messaging protocol, but positioning as a competitor to a social network which was always a distant third was foolish.

At heart, it competes with some combination of FIDO/Passkeys/PGP/RSS/Discord/Signal... a super messy milkshake with a ton of potential for someone who can figure out the mix.

NWC is such a little piece of nostr, it’s not relevant when talking about nostr in general imo.

NWC also has its own issues like no negotiation of permissions between app and wallet.

Nostr is immature (especially regarding key management) but is it really because we’re early?

I'm more in favor of idealism, and less pragmatic, than the author. Although, if I felt like the protocol is ossified (beyond the margins) and the majority of devs/influencers are irrational and have perverse incentives, I would probably share his pragmatism because I couldn't fix the roots of the unpopular opinions. In general though, I think his account of nostr is very sober, and while unpopular, it isn't that negative and his opinions are things people in-the-know aren't willing to say out loud.

Of all the four opinions he listed, one can't be chalked up to "just being early." I too think poorly assigned (especially perpetual) grants come with a price. It's crazy how many would-be founders I've met that are like "I'll just get a grant." AFAICT they mostly want grants because they are low commitment and the expectations are low. They'll then seek VC once they've been denied a grant as if they should be thought of interchangeably.