You've identified my complaint: the smart contract at the root of the protocol. I should say off the bat, too, that I developed software for Farcaster a couple years ago. I'm not a stranger to it. Let the fact that I moved from it to nostr speak for itself.
Different sets ofnpubs should be able to decide to adhere to different concepts of trust without the protocol giving a shit what they do.
If _my_ trust network wants "npub's mom + wife have the say over npub's new nsec", then the way _we_ use the protocol should allow for that. If another group of people want to use another system, they should go ahead and I wish them luck. I'd prefer an open protocol that doesn't enforce opinions about which trust systems are prescribed.
If I understand you correctly, you're implicitly saying "the smart contract is the ultimate source of truth" and I'm simply not a fan of that idea. I prefer blockchains be used for timestamping/double-spend and not as the "global state", because I don't believe "global state" is a coherent concept (and I think it's a road to hell, honestly).
