goodmorning

One thing we don’t talk about enough: most good engineering work is invisible by design. When things work smoothly, users never see the complexity underneath. That’s not an accident - it’s the goal. A lot of our effort goes into things like: – Preventing edge cases before they happen – Making systems boringly reliable – Fixing problems users never have to think about It’s not the most glamorous part of building products. But it’s the part that earns trust.

Most “Web3 architecture” discussions focus on buzzwords. For Web2 #developers transitioning into #Web3, the real changes are much more practical: • Wallets replace traditional login systems • Smart contracts handle trust-critical rules (not all backend logic) • Blockchains are not databases • Backends are still essential for performance, UX, and security In practice, production Web3 apps are hybrid systems: On-chain for trust and ownership. Off-chain for performance and user experience. Understanding this shift early prevents a lot of architectural mistakes - and a lot of wasted time.

Staff augmentation doesn’t fail for the reason people think! Adding more engineers rarely fixes a delivery problem. Most teams don’t struggle because they lack talent. They struggle because new people are dropped into unclear systems. Effective team augmentation isn’t about “extra hands.” It’s about: - Clear ownership - Shared standards - Fast onboarding into real context When external engineers integrate well, velocity increases. When they don’t, complexity just grows faster. Scaling a team is a systems problem, not a headcount problem. #augmentation #effectivebusiness #businesstips

A small reminder from this week’s work: Progress doesn’t always come from writing more code. Sometimes it comes from pausing, challenging assumptions, and realigning as a #team. Some of the most valuable moments this week weren’t technical at all. They were conversations - about priorities, constraints, and what actually matters for users. Those moments don’t show up in demos or metrics. They compound over time.

In the next few years, not using #AI in #Web3 development won’t be a competitive advantage - it will be a limitation. But the real question isn’t whether autonomous AI agents will matter. It’s where they actually make sense. Where AI already works well: - Automating on-chain monitoring and treasury actions - Dynamic pricing, trading, and liquidity optimization - Operational tooling that reduces manual interaction with smart contracts Used thoughtfully, agents can: - Reduce operational overhead - React faster than human workflows - Enable new coordination models between protocols and users That said, there are still challenges teams tend to underestimate: - Security risks when agents control assets - Decision-making that’s hard to fully understand or audit - Governance and accountability when something goes wrong - Adding “agent” layers where simpler automation would do the job What do you think will be the hardest challenge when deploying AI agents in Web3 systems?

The Web3 MVP mindset is quietly changing. A few years ago, MVPs tried to impress: - Complex tokenomics - Feature-heavy roadmaps - “Fully decentralized from day one” In 2026, the teams gaining traction are doing the opposite: - Smaller scopes - Clear user problems - Faster validation loops The market is less forgiving now. Users don’t reward ambition - they reward usefulness. We’re seeing a clear shift toward: - Adoption-first MVPs - Narrow use cases - Products that earn trust before expanding The era of “build everything upfront” is fading fast.

Web3 doesn’t usually fail because of technology. It fails because of decisions made too early - or too late. Most of our work isn’t about chasing the newest chain or tool. It’s about slowing down enough to answer the hard questions first: • What truly belongs on-chain? • What should stay off-chain? • Where does UX matter more than ideology? Those decisions rarely look exciting from the outside. They look like diagrams, debates, and tradeoff discussions. But they’re the difference between a product that scales and one that quietly breaks later.

Most Web3 apps don’t fail because the tech is too hard. They fail because teams try to decentralize everything too early. In theory, full decentralization sounds great. In practice, it’s how budgets get burned and products stall. A real Web3 app isn’t “on-chain vs off-chain.” It’s a deliberate split: – On-chain for trust, ownership, and value – Off-chain for performance, UX, and iteration Smart contracts are powerful - but: ▪︎ They’re expensive to change ▪︎ Public forever ▪︎ Slow to iterate Trying to put product logic where trust isn’t required is one of the fastest ways to kill momentum. The teams that ship successfully treat Web3 like a real product: validate first, architect carefully, and decentralize only where it matters.

Code alone doesn’t build products. Decisions do. A common pattern we see in Web3 teams: - Strong vision - Talented developers - No clear technical ownership When architecture decisions are spread too thin or postponed, complexity piles up quietly - until it becomes expensive. Strong technical leadership early on isn’t about controlling everything. It’s about: - Choosing the right tradeoffs - Setting architectural boundaries - Making today’s decisions survivable tomorrow This is especially true in Web3, where the cost of wrong assumptions compounds fast.

Most of the real work never makes it into launch announcements. This week at goodmorning looked a lot like this 👇 - Debating which features users actually need most - Strengthening our security by integrating #LavaMoat to reduce supply chain risks - Closing the loop on user feedback to continuously improve UX That’s the part of building products we care about most: turning complexity into something simple, reliable, and scalable. One thing we’re constantly reminded of: good products aren’t built by rushing decisions - they’re built by taking the time to make the right ones. No big reveal today. Just the work behind the work. Happy Friday!