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
Ghostlinkz
@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
12 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Channels as a core priority isn’t an option. So looking for the next best alternative.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions