Dan Romero on Farcaster

Dan Romero pfp

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?

49 replies

15 recasts

67 reactions

Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩 pfp

Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩

Having to use another app would kill channels. Being able to cast into a channel from any app would be preferred.

1 reply

0 recast

12 reactions

derek pfp

Reimburse channel creators and maybe. Otherwise, no. All for improvements to FIP-2 casts, though. Seems like a good way to solve.

1 reply

0 recast

6 reactions

shazow pfp

If the only option is this or nothing changes, then maybe yes? Channels as they are rn are a dead end. But, as others put it, this would almost definitely kill channels. Maybe there could be another MM app dedicated just for channels? Could be a valuable forcing function for fleshing out the protocol, but I understand the hesitation of bifurcating focus. (I'd prefer the main client was channel focused but I assume that's not what's working for onboarding rn.) I think that sovereign channels is the one credible path of keeping high quality signal if Farcaster succeeds at x100 growth (rather than degrading into a cesspool like every other scaled social network). Does that mean it's a good problem to have later? I dunno. I'd rather it was part of the growth strategy from the start.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

pugson pfp

would that mean casting in a channel from another client would not make the cast visible in the fc app?

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Patricia Lee pfp

@patriciaxlee.eth

Curious what tradeoffs you see between continuing to support channels in the main app vs offloading that to third-party clients. What gets lost (or gained) in UX, network effects, or growth by removing native channel support? And what becomes possible sooner if you make this change?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

shoni.eth pfp

I dont care what you do with channels Don’t delete my casts Channels will maybe succeed as app feeds someday but I won’t use a second client that isn’t radically better at a problem I can’t name yet

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Zinger pfp

No, this would kill channels

0 reply

0 recast

6 reactions

seneca pfp

No. I suspect having to go to another app / mini app would kill the flow. Also, at current scale, it seems unlikely that people would actually use a second app for channels.

0 reply

0 recast

6 reactions

sahil pfp

Yes, no brainer. https://farcaster.xyz/sahil/0xfb3aafa5

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Jonny Mack pfp

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

jesse.base.eth 🔵 pfp

jesse.base.eth 🔵

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

cody pfp

no. think this breaks the mental modal of what a cast is (as a unit) and would be difficult to explain. "Is this a farcaster cast or a channel cast?" "I casted in the mini app but where does that cast go? does the cast still appear on my profile?" would be bizarre to have to open a mini app on desktop to post to /nba

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Haole pfp

Hashtag is easier than channel, i have already removed all channel membership related features in Recaster. Not enough people, too many separate channels, not good.

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

osama pfp

my 0.02$: protocol should be raw data with legos that enable organization. let apps figure if its channels or group chats. legos should enable "filtering" .... map legacy to new scheme via 1time migration

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Jared 🎩 pfp

I’d prefer to keep channels as is until we can slowly transition to a new app like @cura. I’m slowly trying to get people to use their mini app but it’s a slow change. If we remove channels it’ll kill /politics

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

dexx - Photography pfp

dexx - Photography

Only works if other clients are ready. Otherwise we’re just fragmenting user experience.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Taylor Sizemore pfp

Taylor Sizemore

@taylorsizemore.eth

No. But I could see reinventing channels completely to better serve the people that seem to get the most out of them. Seems like they want access to tighter/smaller sub-communities and the ability to share with and keep up with them via Farcaster?

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Pichi pfp

@patriciaxlee.eth made a great analogy on our Union chat Monday night. Farcaster is like a party. Walking into a party knowing no one sucks. But if you see a food table, you can walk over and chat with folks about the food. If you like to dance, go groove to the music with the folks on the dance floor. Channels help us find our tribes. If we don’t have them, you will have a really hard time finding people to engage with here. I really worry about the spam label too. Channels give folks a safe space to hang out in right now.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Matthew Fox 🌐 pfp

Matthew Fox 🌐

Am I the only one that's kind of fine with how it is 😂

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction