A divide I sense in the Bot Problem Discourse is whether you think it's possible to exclude antisocial actors from an open network. Call these positions "idealism" and "fatalism."

Idealists think we can intervene and limit the long term growth of spam with the right incentives, credentials, and some social (network) engineering. It makes a lot of sense if you think Farcaster is closer to a closed platform like Twitter.

Fatalists think the long term growth of spam is inevitable and in the long run this will always be the majority of activity on the network. So we need to get really good at filtering. It makes a lot of sense if you think Farcaster is closer to an open protocol like email.

Another dimension on top is optimism vs pessimism: whether you think the negative effects can be mitigated. I can't speak for everyone, but working close to the protocol has made me much more of a fatalist optimist.

I work at the posts office

terminally.online

Then there are capitalists who believe that scarce resources such  as user attention and feed space are best allocated through markets and pricing mechanisms and maybe a lot of it would sort itself out if there only was a way to natively combine scarce resources such as money with open protocols.