I believe there is a fundamental distinction between URI schemes that are dynamic but centralized (meaning they require some form of coordination, to handle mut

I believe there is a fundamental distinction between URI schemes that are dynamic but centralized (meaning they require some form of coordination, to handle mutability), versus schemes that are static and decentralized (for example, they are defined by a hash algorithm that anyone can run independently). If you go the dynamic/centralized route you end up with something like the World Wide Web, which already works very well for that use case. Content addressing will never be useful for things like online shopping, where your requests are basically remote procedure calls. Instead I think it's good for publishing, sharing files, and things like that. I do have a plan to build mutability on top of StrongLink eventually, using diffs like Git. I think it's important to have a clean separation, so that the sync protocol stays simple and impossible to get wrong. The initial application for StrongLink is notetaking, which I find much easier to do with immutability. It's like writing in ink.