Great insights there!

What I would add based on my pain points as a DeSo dev:

* Processes to keep the docs up to date, as soon as a new feature is rolled out, it should have docs ready. It should also provide something more than just describing the API endpoints, because so far we have needed to rely on dev tools in the browser to see how you handle things, and many times we have had to check the implementation of the endpoints in the core/backend Git repos and figure out how they work ourselves.

* What developers can create is limited by what the backend API provides (unless someone makes their own indexer and does everything on their own, which requires a huge effort and investment) and as we all know, PRs are not encouraged and helpful suggestions are ignored, probably due to the lack of time of the core team (and I don't blame them), but it's still a very big problem. If I have a hammer, I can only pound nails. Many ideas didn't get implemented because we don't have the right tools. How we could handle that?

Regarding that:
"We assume that by nailing the experience for the “Web2 devs with Web3 Intent” audience, we should be able to leverage that foundation to convince Web3 devs to switch over"

It may not be enough because of competing decentralized social protocols being developed, which could be a better bet for web3 developers. Easiest is not always the best. DeSo feels like it is built in its own parallel universe and is not entirely based on the same principles as the wider web3 ecosystem. This strategy, which focuses on web2 developers, seems to confirm this - let's get web2 devs because web3 will not come here. Solving this perception could be very helpful and worth considering in the wider strategy to bring more devs. Or we just rely on a single leader (Nader) and his directional, contrarian bet and a group that believe in his omnipotent power? Just something to ponder upon.

I will not comment much on "Developer Incentives" because it is not fully fleshed out yet and requires more focus. However, for now, it is easier to get funds for something developed on Polygon, for example, than on DeSo and this require very thoughtful considerations to match that ease to convince more devs.

I think that singular focus/bet on "web2 programming languages" (aka smart-services) could be a two-edged sword. This is not that important, because devs learn languages all the time and they come and go (with copilot and the use of AI it's getting even more irrelevant). But it creates constraints that could be deadly. It still could be semi-ok to go that route, but need an urgent change of strategy and implementation of new solutions. User funds cannot be held by a single entity - period (DAODAOescrow is an example of that). We don't want a next FTX situation. If this is not handled, serious devs believing in decentralization will not come. This cannot be a toy.

One more concerning thing is the answer to the question - "Will it last? Will it be a number one decentralized ecosystem? Or is it a waste of time and money?". It seems that there is a bottleneck in the system - the core team. We need to wait, sometimes 1y+ just to wait for the implementation of something, but on other chains, it's already implemented by others or we could write it ourselves and integrate it seamlessly. Other chains have problems too, but the speed of iteration is much greater there (mainly due to composability and modularity). Advantages don't last forever, faster iteration wins. Devs see that.

What I mean by that there is a bigger game at play when trying to convince developers, not only the things visible on the surface but the whole narrative and the reputation.

Thanks for giving more love to devs! 💙 It will definitely help a lot.