@dwr on Farcaster: "Second channels question Agai..."

7mo

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?

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 i

3.1Kviews

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

1

9

The challenge is membership. Super messy to support cross app. Doable but a ton of work. If no membership, then channels get overrun with spam.

3

4

What if it was simplified like dc group chats? Link to join controlled by the owner? And just 2 options (open to all; link to invite) rather than mod bots with multiple options? Or even - 1) open to all 2) open to mods only with owner setting the mods? Just spitballing. Seems like the spam problem only gets worse if it’s # type casting into channels.

1

That’s basically the current system?

1

Except with mod bots & other integrations—thought maybe that was the issue creating complexity. Is the problem membership gating at all? (In terms of it existing at a protocol level?)

1

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

1

3

No but if they stay in current state for indefinite period of time?

2

1

It feels off for channel creators to get rugged at *any* point in time in the future, particularly when considering the cost to create a channel. If there's value still for channel creators in the first-party app (which in my mind, they've paid for), then I think it's fine to evolve over time.

4

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

1

We don’t have bandwidth for a second app unfortunately.

1

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

The concept is hard for new users. Making it easier for new users makes it way more work for mods. Neither really drive growth.

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

Where did I say we will delete your casts

1

i actually don't care if you hide them from feed on second thought-- net+ for data provider/modifier businesses

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

1

It would be visible with some simple label. TBD if broadcast or narrowcast.

1

1

For what it's worth, I appreciate discovering channels by seeing people I follow casting in them. Fitness is a great example. Objkt Is probably a better example, because I might not have known about it until I saw artists I like posting there.

1

No, this would kill channels

5

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.

4

yeah

2

Yes, no brainer.

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

2

yes

2

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

1

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

1

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.

1