The idea of it having to be every dev for themselves when it comes to developing clients. Why have 50 devs working on 50 different good, but not really great, clients, when they should be grouping up and focusing on 2-3 bigger and more robust clients. To me, this would create a standard of what NIPs Twitter alternatives should be implementing by default. Then again I'm not a developer so keep my ignorance in mind.

That also leads to this feeling of not really knowing what the hell nostr is supposed to be. I use it exclusively as a Twitter/X alternative. That's what people fleeing X most likely want. But we have 50 devs working on 50 good but not great clients that fill 50 wildly different roles. That's going to confuse the hell out of the normies. My peanut gallery take is devs should focus on establishing a large userbase for the microblogging apps, then figure out what roles nostr tackles next. 

 nostr is relatively new, no? i think this kind of thing is bound to happen. just give it time and natural selection will narrow the scope of things. 

 Problem is that I've seen on at least one occasion that when people suggest that there are perhaps too many clients and that people focus on a couple, they got shouted down. 

 Maybe someone should write a NIP that defines a suggested minimum featureset (list of NIPs to be implemented) for microblogging type clients. Then, clients can claim NIP-XYZ compliance and users can have an idea what they can do. 

 That's not bad idea. Just a matter of figuring out what what NIPs should be on that list.