We're definitely against Ethereum-style everything-is-a-smart-contract approach. We're not strictly against the idea and we may as well be positioned to out-compete others on technical merits in this area too. But yeah, it's just not obvious there is much actual utility for average users. Things people REALLY need shouldn't be a smart contract in the first place - they should get first class treatment on the Family Ledger. Things people don't need - well we don't need those. So there's only this awkward long tail of things SOME people kind of sort of want. Then there are many things that are strictly net negatives - scams, questionable tokens, glorified casinos and the likes. There's a trade-off there. May as well do more harm.

That said, we do have plans for limited extensibility that is NOT based on smart contracts. We're working on something that will integrate nicely into Family OS, without the security and usability nightmare.


What we mean by "first class" is that features get implemenet directly as core ledger transaction types. Most (all?) cryptos usually have one transaction type and generalize it to do different things. We have different transaction types that do different things.


You could call it that. But it's more of an ongoing thing, not a one-off like airdrops.