💯 totally with you and fully agree. My comments were more around using the term DVM. If MCP ends up being an Industry term for a single purpose API endpoint that takes an input and returns useful data then Nostr relays should just embrace that. Instead of introducing a new concept of “DVM” we should be working with ML/AI devs to enable payments for MCP. Meet people out there in the middle.
Discussion
In my view, DVMCP is not just MCP; it's MCP implemented over Nostr, which adds some interesting features to the equation, particularly verifiability through cryptographic identities. Until the MCP protocol incorporates something similar into its specification - which I believe is outside its scope - Nostr serves as the perfect fit for it. With this implementation, you now have remote MCP servers that anyone can access over WebSockets, with an added cryptographic layer, and all the composability of Nostr, including payments, discoverability, and more. These two open-source protocols complement each other well. The DVM concept is also an ideal fit for this system, as it already conceives the RPC request/response interaction that MCP relies on
yeah that is a good point, the identity and trust side of selecting a tool or resource.