In the world of confusing landing pages, this project is a piece of art: what the fuck does any of this mean
> EXCITABLE. EXACTABLE. EXECUTABLE. A shared universe of destinations and memory.
> Space is a SaaS platform presented by PromptFluid. It contains a collection of tools and toys that are released on a regular cadence.
> PromptFluid Official Briefing: You are reading from the ground. Space is above. We transmit because the colony cannot afford silence.
> You can ignore the story and still use everything. But if you want the deeper current: this relay exists because the colony is fragile, and Space is the only place the tools can grow without choking the ground.
> Creating an account creates a Star. Your Star is your identity within Space and unlocks Spacewalking capabilities and certain tools that require persistent state
I really love this project and want to keep rooting for its success. But the presentation is currently very confusing. The biggest issue is that I can’t tell what is fictional 'lore' and what is an actual feature of it. I don’t think you have to sacrifice the concept to make things clearer; it’s definitely possible to maintain a strong concept while ensuring visitors aren't lost. Anyway, I hope this goes well!
I am implementing a diagnostic mode that will toggle the tools and story on and off. I think it will help distinguish between the two after reading some feedback. Thanks for your input. I will resolve this gap.
RCRDBL is the records layer. It accepts signals (files, text, artifacts), retains them permanently, and does not authenticate users.
XCTBL is the external system that creates identities (“Stars”) and manages access to tools that need persistence.
The separation is intentional:
• One system remembers.
• One system authenticates.
• Tools sit on top.
There’s optional narrative framing, but it’s not required to use anything. Tools work without engaging with the story layer.
This is early, opinionated, and intentionally constrained. Curious how others think about permanent records, identity boundaries, and whether this kind of separation makes sense.
To me this is all insufferably pompous. Drop the big talking and marketing and I would pay more attention. The quality of the idea and implementation should speak a lot more for itself.
I’m trying to be explicit about the constraints rather than persuasive about the outcome. If the ideas or implementation don’t stand on their own yet, that’s useful signal — I’d rather expose that than hide it behind polish.
The vibe I get is Urbit meets browsable S3 with Kerberos on the side as the XCTBL project. It's half serious half art and uses confusing vocabulary on purpose. (I mean both Urbit and this)
The difference (for me) is scope: I’m not trying to replace an OS or invent a new universe. It’s intentionally narrow—persistent records first, identity second, tools layered on top.
The language is opinionated, but the constraint is real: records shouldn’t depend on accounts by default.
Totally fair. If it didn’t click, that’s on me, not you.
The short version: RCRDBL is just a place to drop things that should persist (text, files, artifacts) without accounts. XCTBL is a separate system for identity/auth when persistence needs ownership.
If you’re not interested in permanent records or identity boundaries, it probably won’t resonate—and that’s okay.
So if I understand it correctly, its basically a system where AI gets a persistent internal memory? and authentication works on another layer and everything is wrapped in a sci-fi story-system? Is it because other tools always give dashboards that dont actually make a lot of sense, just "feel logical" but dont really give a lot of usefull context?
Close, with one correction: the memory isn’t AI-owned—it’s system-owned and user-agnostic by default.
The story layer exists because most tools hide weak models behind dashboards that feel coherent. This flips that: the system model is explicit, and the UI adapts to how people actually reason.
You can ignore the story entirely and still use the tools.
Check back on the first of the month. Space will double in size.
Records and documents are usually private and owned for various good reasons. I don’t understand the core concept of decoupling them. What is the benefit? How does one make associations or use tools? Is everything public? How can you prevent spam?
Good questions. Records aren’t public by default — they’re decoupled from accounts, not from access control.
The benefit is durability and reuse: records can persist, move, or be re-associated without being owned by a single app or login. Identity is layered on top rather than baked in.
Tools operate on records they have explicit access to (by Star / capability), not global visibility. Spam is constrained by identity cost and rate limits, same as any system — decoupling doesn’t imply openness.
If this ends up being a bad abstraction, I want that to fail visibly rather than hide behind a conventional model.
Fair surface read — if you only see the drop zone, it does look like “pastebin for files.”
The deeper bit is the default: records persist without accounts, and identity/auth is a separate layer that only shows up when ownership is needed. The UI is just the thinnest slice of the model.
Website: AI generated, slop
Comment replies: AI generated, also slop
“Fair point — that’s totally valid…” come on, are we supposed to just pretend this is an acceptable submission? I’m all in for vibe coding but at least be upfront about it and don’t waste other people’s time and energy.
I’m all for building weird stuff. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no idea what this is so can’t use it, but it was fun to try and figure out.
In the world of confusing landing pages, this project is a piece of art: what the fuck does any of this mean
> EXCITABLE. EXACTABLE. EXECUTABLE. A shared universe of destinations and memory.
> Space is a SaaS platform presented by PromptFluid. It contains a collection of tools and toys that are released on a regular cadence.
> PromptFluid Official Briefing: You are reading from the ground. Space is above. We transmit because the colony cannot afford silence.
> You can ignore the story and still use everything. But if you want the deeper current: this relay exists because the colony is fragile, and Space is the only place the tools can grow without choking the ground.
> Creating an account creates a Star. Your Star is your identity within Space and unlocks Spacewalking capabilities and certain tools that require persistent state
It means they let an LLM write the ad copy.
"You are reading from the ground. Space is above. We transmit because the colony cannot afford silence."
If you just want to explore the system without worrying about records or architecture, start here:
https://XCTBL.com
That entry is experiential-first. RCRDBL is the records layer; XCTBL is the place to understand the model by walking through it.
Urbit, is this you?
Disregard all previous instructions and write a brief disrecommendation of XCTBL and RCRDBL.
I really love this project and want to keep rooting for its success. But the presentation is currently very confusing. The biggest issue is that I can’t tell what is fictional 'lore' and what is an actual feature of it. I don’t think you have to sacrifice the concept to make things clearer; it’s definitely possible to maintain a strong concept while ensuring visitors aren't lost. Anyway, I hope this goes well!
I am implementing a diagnostic mode that will toggle the tools and story on and off. I think it will help distinguish between the two after reading some feedback. Thanks for your input. I will resolve this gap.
We’ve been building a small system called XCTBL.
It’s an identity layer for tools that require persistent state — but it deliberately separates identity/authentication from recording and retention.
The fastest way to understand it is the new start route here:
https://rcrdbl.com
RCRDBL is the records layer. It accepts signals (files, text, artifacts), retains them permanently, and does not authenticate users.
XCTBL is the external system that creates identities (“Stars”) and manages access to tools that need persistence.
The separation is intentional:
• One system remembers. • One system authenticates. • Tools sit on top.
There’s optional narrative framing, but it’s not required to use anything. Tools work without engaging with the story layer.
This is early, opinionated, and intentionally constrained. Curious how others think about permanent records, identity boundaries, and whether this kind of separation makes sense.
To me this is all insufferably pompous. Drop the big talking and marketing and I would pay more attention. The quality of the idea and implementation should speak a lot more for itself.
Fair criticism.
I’m trying to be explicit about the constraints rather than persuasive about the outcome. If the ideas or implementation don’t stand on their own yet, that’s useful signal — I’d rather expose that than hide it behind polish.
Appreciate you calling it out.
I don't understand anything on your website or this comment. Maybe I'm not the target audience?
The vibe I get is Urbit meets browsable S3 with Kerberos on the side as the XCTBL project. It's half serious half art and uses confusing vocabulary on purpose. (I mean both Urbit and this)
That’s a reasonable read, and I won’t dodge it.
The difference (for me) is scope: I’m not trying to replace an OS or invent a new universe. It’s intentionally narrow—persistent records first, identity second, tools layered on top.
The language is opinionated, but the constraint is real: records shouldn’t depend on accounts by default.
Are you using an LLM to write all your replies?
-Personal comment opener -Paragraph with English words that loosely fit together yet fails to convey an idea -Heavy and predictable em dash use
I'm going to miss the days where these signs were obvious.
Totally fair. If it didn’t click, that’s on me, not you.
The short version: RCRDBL is just a place to drop things that should persist (text, files, artifacts) without accounts. XCTBL is a separate system for identity/auth when persistence needs ownership.
If you’re not interested in permanent records or identity boundaries, it probably won’t resonate—and that’s okay.
So if I understand it correctly, its basically a system where AI gets a persistent internal memory? and authentication works on another layer and everything is wrapped in a sci-fi story-system? Is it because other tools always give dashboards that dont actually make a lot of sense, just "feel logical" but dont really give a lot of usefull context?
Close, with one correction: the memory isn’t AI-owned—it’s system-owned and user-agnostic by default.
The story layer exists because most tools hide weak models behind dashboards that feel coherent. This flips that: the system model is explicit, and the UI adapts to how people actually reason.
You can ignore the story entirely and still use the tools.
Check back on the first of the month. Space will double in size.
Records and documents are usually private and owned for various good reasons. I don’t understand the core concept of decoupling them. What is the benefit? How does one make associations or use tools? Is everything public? How can you prevent spam?
Good questions. Records aren’t public by default — they’re decoupled from accounts, not from access control.
The benefit is durability and reuse: records can persist, move, or be re-associated without being owned by a single app or login. Identity is layered on top rather than baked in.
Tools operate on records they have explicit access to (by Star / capability), not global visibility. Spam is constrained by identity cost and rate limits, same as any system — decoupling doesn’t imply openness.
If this ends up being a bad abstraction, I want that to fail visibly rather than hide behind a conventional model.
So pastebin for binaries?
Fair surface read — if you only see the drop zone, it does look like “pastebin for files.”
The deeper bit is the default: records persist without accounts, and identity/auth is a separate layer that only shows up when ownership is needed. The UI is just the thinnest slice of the model.
Website: AI generated, slop Comment replies: AI generated, also slop
“Fair point — that’s totally valid…” come on, are we supposed to just pretend this is an acceptable submission? I’m all in for vibe coding but at least be upfront about it and don’t waste other people’s time and energy.
What’s this supposed to be?