Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Looking for input Assume we want to simplify channels to make them: 1. Fully decentralized, zero Farcaster app dependencies 2. Allow other clients to extend them 3. No cost to create them Which option is most appealing? A) Hashtag approach — channels are open to everyone, channel pages look less like profiles and instead are a simple feed of casts. There’s no moderation — the feed is unique to each viewer based on their own social graph and maybe a user-controlled setting around filtering. B) Niche interest approach — Channels are open to everyone and narrowcast only, ie you get no distribution boost. But allows you to cast in a channel knowing only people interested in that topic will see it. Assume in both cases membership and moderation in the main Farcaster app would go away. PYou’d be free to use a channel focused client for more community features. This is not an imminent change, more gathering input for what matters to people who still use channels.
124 replies
113 recasts
602 reactions
Dharmi Kumbhani
@dharmi
B Onboarding users into niche communities fuels bottom-up growth. Hashtags are pretty historic and doesn't solve for "ownership" channel owners/mods is a distinct persona and should be thought for differently. With over 9,500 channel mods today, their contributions are crucial for Farcasters growth, not just through content, but by engaging users who wouldn’t gain visibility on the main feed or weekly rewards (e.g. @inceptionally with ITAP airdrops, @humpty.eth with creators, @pichi with anime fans, @ashmoney.eth and @kmacb.eth with football fans) Ownership of Channels and Onboarding of net new users directly into channels is an imp growth lever imo
0 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
