I’m excited to see something like this in the works—thanks for all your efforts! Even though there are many writing tools out there and new ones appear every day, there’s always room for innovation, and InkHaven is definitely one of those opportunities.
I believe the most important question is who the first 1,000 users—the initial target audience—will be. In my understanding InkHaven aims to attract writers who (1) are dissatisfied with Web2 platforms’ revenue cuts and seek higher returns, (2) want their work to be permanently showcased, and (3) value more direct connections with readers. If so the challenge turns to find users who fit this profile, which may be the hardest part and where skilled growth experts could make a difference.
If the initial goal is to reach certain kind of 1,000 users, it’s better to focus on this small group and trim some features meant for mass adoption—we’ll get there eventually, just not today. For example, is credit card payment necessary? is on-chain data “compression” necessary? etc.
I’m not sure whether the record is compatible with CKB token standards such as UDT, DOB, Spore, or RGB++. This matters because standard compatibility enables on-chain seals/publications to be “liquid” and circulate throughout the ecosystem—for example, combining with Nervape or RGB+±leaping to Bitcoin. It also forms the foundation for more advanced tokenomic designs, such as DOBs for fan clubs or UDT/DOB-based curator and recommendation models.
And the tier-ed storage model is cool. Not sure if you consider provide more on-chain tiers in future. For example, a hash+signature seal tier, a DOB tier, a Bitcoin on RGB++ tier, so users can choose different benefits/costs package themselves. More tiers will incur higher cognition burden and development complexity though.
The tiered storage model is great. Are you considering adding more on-chain tiers in the future? For example, a hash + signature seal tier, a DOB tier, or Bitcoin/RGB++ tier, so users can choose their preferred balance of benefits and costs. However, adding more tiers would increase cognitive load and development complexity.
Yes if it finds the 1000 first users and converts them to Nervos users.
It’s fine. Arweave is a practical choice for permanence. I think a project’s “CKB-native score” mainly depends on how deeply and broadly it integrates with the CKB ecosystem (such as UDT/DOB composability), rather than on the number of non-CKB integrations it has.
One final suggestion concerns its name (as noted in this comment): sharing the same name as another product in the same category causes unnecessary confusion and, in my opinion, has more drawbacks than benefits.
I’m really excited to see all the ideas and effort that went into this. Can’t wait for the launch!