Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
What should we do with egregious examples of squatted channels? I'm going to call this individual out since it's clearly squatting — @0xg — is sitting on a bunch of city channels and not actively building communities: /denver /la /losangeles /nyc /newyorkcity /newyork /sanfrancisco (Also the multiple variations of city names with no activity is clear squatting and when there are active communities in /los-angeles /sf /new-york.) A few other thoughts: 1. We have a no squatting policy for fnames and we allow ENS for a name that isn't governed by that policy. 2. We never advertised channels as something you buy and own forever. Has been centralized and experimental since we allowed anyone to create a channel last December. 3. I'm sympathetic to someone who is good faith trying to build a community, but that's not squatting. 4. Squatting is squishy, know it when you see, not deterministic. 5. Ultimately, squatters are massive negative externality on the network. It's parasitic, anti-social behavior.
38 replies
11 recasts
92 reactions
Pichi
@pichi
Refund them and take them back.
4 replies
0 recast
25 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Channels are a yearly fee. How do you think pro-rated refund? They've cost the network a genuine person trying to build a community.
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Pichi
@pichi
As a gesture of good will, I’d refund them in full so they can’t cry foul and worry other legitimate channel owners that Warpcast will “steal your channel” away from you after you bought it fair and square narrative. Then you invite them to use their refunds to mint art or buy a new channel where they can create a community around their own expertise.
0 reply
0 recast
6 reactions