We did it differently. We published CPS-0001 before we had evidence that anyone needs it. And we did it deliberately. Here’s why.
👇
1️⃣ PROTOCOL OBJECTS BENEFIT FROM EARLY VISIBILITY
JWT was published before it was widely adopted. OAuth 1.0 was published and then rewritten. HTTP/2 had public drafts long before broad deployment. Early publication gives the community time to find problems, suggest changes, and build compatible tools before the spec is frozen. CPS-0001 defines a genuinely new protocol object — the Continuity Receipt. If it has value, early publication is the fastest way to find out.
2️⃣ WE WANT TO DISCOVER IF THE PROBLEM IS REAL — NOT PRETEND IT IS
Most projects start with a problem and build a solution. We started with a technical capability — an engine-independent protocol for continuity receipts — and are now investigating whether a problem exists that requires it.
3️⃣ EARLY PUBLICATION IS A LEGIBILITY TEST
When you publish a protocol, strangers can read it, criticize it, and try to implement it without your help. If they can't, that is the most valuable signal you can get, and the cheapest time to get it. We're asking: "is this clear enough that someone could spend a day implementing it?" If the answer is no, no market story has any foundation.
4️⃣ WE PUBLISHED BEFORE WE KNEW. THAT WAS THE POINT.
An open protocol is a hypothesis stated in public. It either survives contact with strangers or it doesn't. We'd rather learn that now, while it's still cheap to change.
This is not a growth post. It's an honesty post. We're not claiming market fit. We're claiming we've built something concrete enough to test — and that testing it in the open is the only honest way to find out if it matters.
Read the spec: github.com/myshapeprotocol/myshape-protocol
Research hub: thecontinuitylab.org
Top comments (0)