I did not say your wallet has bad UX and I did not know where you got that idea.
Inherently, perfected KYC wallets will have worse UX than perfected nonKYC wallets because one does not ask for PII.
These types of responses are what’s making people stop believing Primal is acting in good faith. All criticism is deflected and responded to with aggression.
There’s no aggression here, Semisol. You implied that KYC wallets have bad UX. Your words, not mine.
Our POV is most users are willing to sacrifice their KYC for convenience and good UX. There are non privacy and decentralization freaks that exist.
The only functionality Primal could not provide without KYC is buying sats.
The solution is to KYC only if people want to buy sats.
If your goal is to allow mass adoption, the first instinct should not be “yes let’s ask users that have no idea what zaps are to give their PII to try it”
I now ask for one feature, which is for users or caching services to be able to change the wallet.primal.net endpoint.
Then you're philosophically misaligned with nostrs chief principles. Did you ever stop to wonder why why primal is behind on so many previously integrated features despite all your funding? Why non-KYC clients have made further (and quicker) progress than primal?
Primal's adoption rate seems to continue to grow. Now just like you, this is only my perception based on onboarding and community events, I don't have numbers to back up this claim. What is Primal behind on? What features don't they have that you'd like to see?
All the while more and more people are continuing to complain about it. Deletion of notes, which has been around since I first showed up and numerous relay-related issues that the Gitcitadel team has brought to my attention. And their arguments are valid. As for things I'd like to see: obviously non-kyc, a lack of algorithm, and the lack of search data collection.
