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.

Second channels question

Again, looking for input. No imminent change. 

Assume a “yes” to the below makes it more likely that we unlock channel innovation in other apps and they are fully decentralized and that happens *a lot* sooner than alternatives.

Here’s the hypothetical:

1. We remove all the existing channel functionality from Farcaster app.

2. All old and future channel casts still appear in the app (ie FIP-2 casts today but we make them a bit nicer than they are now).

3. In order to cast in a channel you use a mini app or another client like Cura or Zapper.

Yes or No?

The challenge with channels is there’s no consensus on what they should be.

1. Distribution vs. niche interest

2. Open but tons of mod work vs. Closed but frustrating for new users

A lot of this is a result of our iteration on the feature and not having anything work. 

A simpler version not dependent on the Farcaster app—but not emphasized by it, would most likely mean other app developers could solve for the various cases. 

And now with mini apps, you could imagine channel-specific clients as mini apps.

The challenge with channels is there’s no consensus on what they should be.

1. Distribution vs. niche interest

2. Open but tons of mod work vs. Closed but frustrating for new users

A lot of this is a result of our iteration on the feature and not having anything work. 

A simpler version not dependent on the Farcaster app—but not emphasized by it, would most likely mean other app developers could solve for the various cases. 

And now with mini apps, you could imagine channel-specific clients as mini apps.

https://farcaster.xyz/dwr.eth/0x19ce197c
https://farcaster.xyz/dwr.eth/0xd7e9b71b

building /gmfarcaster network |
blockchain ENT prof |  ⌐◧-◧ Nouncillor, Nouner, BuilderDAO community resident /builder |

https://www.gmfarcaster.com/

agree with @nounishprof 

for popular topics, it feels awkward not to be able to post in a channel, if channels exist

for example
/ai - a good amount of my posts would filter nicely into there

can see the distinction of tags and broadcast channels, becomes a UI/UX headache to have both

perhaps keep channel and then have a toggle of [ all | channel members ]

lets get to the best version faster - follow @1dolinski · challenge your habits · click to say hi to my ai https://getfirstresponder.com/talk/1dolinski

ohh really? 

how do I post in /ai? 
where do I request approval to join?

It’s members and the mod doesn’t want to add new people.

it seems this is important nuance to the experience of channels, so i see 

/ai instead of being a channel, is now a broadcast channel, which is common

if that's the case, it could use an icon or description explaining that these channels are mixed in with regular channels 

imo, best would be a ui touch up + an option to request to join a channel and have a status for your request

broadcast channels take on the responsibility of having moderators

for example, it's unclear which ones here i can contribute to

for some of these im a contributor, others im an audience member.. unclear which is which