Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
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
111 recasts
544 reactions
EyesObscura
@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
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
There is no benefit to distribution.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
EyesObscura
@eyesobscura.eth
Oh sorry I thought there were today. I understand the interest of narrow casting but I think it makes the meta a bit complicated for small accounts and new users.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
