dwr on Farcaster

Dan Romero pfp

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.

117 replies

75 recasts

370 reactions

phil pfp

Lean towards B. I like hashtags as an idea, but they feel like a skeuomorphic tech from before we had machine learning.

2 replies

6 recasts

68 reactions

Ghostlinkz pfp

@ghostlinkz.eth

Without membership, moderation, and ownership at the protocol level, they are essentially just hashtags, regardless of how the narrative is framed, and they will inevitably be flooded with spam. Infrastructure providers like Neynar have built around the current structure, so if memberships were removed, a channel-based client like Tunecaster would quickly be overwhelmed by spam. I strongly suggest making channels a core priority and introducing a channel-based onboarding flow. This could be the growth engine you've been searching for.

1 reply

0 recast

8 reactions

borodutch pfp

@farcasteradmin.eth

i don't like hashtags, people start optimizing them (e.g. see instagram) by spamming hashtags (as many as they can fit)

2 replies

0 recast

7 reactions

pugson (Farcaster Professional) pfp

pugson (Farcaster Professional)

A could be nice if they don't end up being such a huge toxic wasteland like they are right now

1 reply

0 recast

5 reactions

EyesObscura pfp

@eyesobscura.eth

It won't be a clear answer but the channel thing is quite disturbing when casting, each time I ask myself if appropriate to cast a thing in a channel or not and it always end the same way, I always cast in same channels. Furthermore I haven't noticed any difference in distribution so that's a lot of questions for a similar outcome.

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions

jd 🌺 pfp

which of these options would enable this https://farcaster.xyz/jdl/0x19347854

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

MOΞ pfp

so in both approaches channels would simply be a text tag and not have any additional metadata like image and bio?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Garrett pfp

I lean towards B that option feels more like subreddits or feeds built around specific topics/communities which feels more orderly and focused relative to the hashtag approach A feels more like you’re solving for topics whereas B feels more like you’re solving for niche communities/groups around a particular topic

0 reply

2 recasts

13 reactions

Zinger pfp

B, it's part of what makes Farcaster special imo A should also happen but implicit (algo) vs. explicit

0 reply

0 recast

7 reactions

Jacob pfp

my initial reaction was B but now leaning toward A based on *feed is unique to each user's social graph* that sounds like a novel solution

1 reply

0 recast

6 reactions

McBain pfp

B, sometimes you wanna niche cast

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

raulonastool.eth 🏰 pfp

raulonastool.eth 🏰

B I feel is closer in spirit. Like little subreddits

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Apurv pfp

B seems more intuitive - almost like sub reddit feel , closer to how i perceive channels as a niche interest group. Just have a negative psychological bias when it comes to hash tags - too farmed on X + primarily used to simply search

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

sahil pfp

YES! option B it gives greater design surface for communities and form factors on the protocol. membership/moderation can easily be handled client side (we're building Cura to solve for this) we're happy to float a proposal and support implementation - we'll make all channel management functionality available on cura from day 1 of transition. - we'll ensure backward compatibility to preserve existing channels - we'll make it easy for channel related read/write happen on farcaster app through mini app rendering.

0 reply

2 recasts

7 reactions

shazow pfp

Whatever gets us closer to more sovereign subreddits. If those were the only choices, then B sounds more like a step in that direction.

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Garance pfp

Would be interesting to see what @rounds @curabot @octant @naaate @jacque think about this

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Steve pfp

My gut says A. B seems interesting but if I read it correctly, if I cast into /channelnooneknows of, it won't be seen unless others are following it too? And thus the only way to bring awareness is to first cast about it, not into it. I think I like the idea but would worry about discoverability. Here's a longer thought of me agreeing wholeheartedly with this direction https://farcaster.xyz/sdv.eth/0x955b9d30

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

zoo pfp

B nicheness would only affect home algo feed? if so that plus channel clients for filtering sounds ideal izo

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

max ↑ pfp

@baseddesigner.eth

I think there’s a difference between public channels like /food and brand channels like /matcha some you want to be open, others you want to be limited to your company/community

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions