So clearly the only obstacle for adoption on Nervos Talk is the absence of a good fiber wallet, which is out of our scope.
Then why are we expanding to more platforms before a polished wallet is built? Because our current use case is highly niche and doesn’t rely on a consumer-friendly wallet experience.
And honestly, for our core business, a fiber wallet with liquidity node is not central to our product. We can proivde specific payment providers for clients.
The only thing I really care about is stablecoin support, because a payment network without stablecoins is almost impossible to promote or scale.
Thanks for clarifying. It makes sense to me if you are targeting the B2B market. In that case, I would say Nervos Talk is not the first use case for Fiber Link. And the liquidity of stable coins is certainly a real problem for pushing Fiber to the mainstream marketplace from Fiber Link.
So clearly the only obstacle for adoption on Nervos Talk is the absence of a good fiber wallet, which is out of our scope.
I want to better understand this problem. To me, it seems the wallet is neither a problem just like stable coins for adoption on Nervos Talk. Fiber supports arbitrary wallets for channel funding. And users on Nervos Talk definitly have wallets in their browser or desktop like metamask, UTXO global, neuron etc. I am wondering what specific problems in the wallet are blocking the adoption For Nervos Talk in your opinion?
a wallet with strong Fiber support and good liquidity;
To be more specific, a wallet routed to our recipient node through liquidity fiber nodes, and the liquidity fiber nodes support channel rotation so we can extract funds from channel without disconnection.
From the demo link above, I assume the background architecture of Discourse about its Fiber Tipping part is running in a centric way?
Like, you have Discourse to setup a Fiber node and a CKB wallet address, the tipping is leaded to its Fiber node, and there’s a backend server to record which user account the tipping directs to, for withdrawal process, Discourse extract CKB from its CKB wallet to user on-chain address.
I really guess the underlying mechanics is like I said above. Please correct me if I’m wrong with that. Thanks!
It’s partly correct: the current Fiber Link service does have a hosted service layer that handles the always-online receiving node, ledger, payment status tracking and withdrawal flow.
But I would slightly correct the role of Discourse here. Discourse itself does not run a Fiber Node or manage a CKB wallet to receive all tips. Discourse mainly integrates with Fiber Link through a plugin. The plugin provides the Tip UI inside posts/replies and passes user, creator, and tip request to the Fiber Link service.Fiber Link is a layer across platforms/communities.
This design lowers the barrier for both sides:
Tippers do not need to deposit the minimum 61 CKB to the platform for small tipping, as web5 bbs required.
Creators also do not need to deploy and maintain 24/7 online Fiber nodes with channel pools
Another important point is that the Fiber Link Service is decoupled from any single platform. A creator’s balance can accumulate across multiple communities or apps integrated with Fiber Link, instead of being fragmented inside separate platform accounts. This makes small tip easier to aggregate and helps creators reach the withdrawal threshold faster.
So the more accurate description is: Discourse is the integration and presentation layer, while Fiber Link provides the payment, receiving node, and ledger service layer.
This is not a perfectly trustless model, but it lowers the barrier for tipping, which may increase creator’s income, while also saving creators from maintaining their own receiving infra.
The trade-off is bounded: in the worst case, creators may only lose their pending balance before withdrawal. They can reduce this exposure by withdrawing early, and since Fiber Link can aggregate earnings across platforms, they may reach the withdrawal threshold sooner.
Note: The committee temporarily paid this branch of payout (invisibook M2, Pocket Node M4, Fiber Link M3, and Fiber desktop initial) using another single-sig wallet. Subsequently, the committee reimbursed the same amount of CKB from the DAO wallet.