bankless

The guy these people are defending squatted a lot more than /bankless:

bankless
barstoolsports
disney
doodles
espn
meta
microsoft
onlyfans
phantom
starbucks

Would be better if people supported builders with this level of energy than someone clearly extracting.

The guy these people are defending squatted a lot more than /bankless:

bankless
barstoolsports
disney
doodles
espn
meta
microsoft
onlyfans
phantom
starbucks

Would be better if people supported builders with this level of energy than someone clearly extracting. https://x.com/dwr/status/1758217405615272177

PWEASE

Creator of TMZ CRYPTO & building https://futurenaut.co - join today to secure an OG spot.

One idea would have been to create something like a "temporary lock" on many of these public channels (/microsoft etc), so that nobody could squat them in the first place. And also have a rule that "missed channels" (maybe such as bankless, would could be taken back under certain circumstances.

But it isn't easy.

Yes, eventually channels should be in the protocol (no court ruling could change that).   

Takes time to get to something decentralized that works well. Date before you marry and all.

I hate squatters as much as the next guy. Yet I absolutely understand the argument behind people defending him. Not him personally, but the idea behind it.

Channels should be handled like domains. If you infringe on a copyright the owner can take things to court and get the domain back, but not _just like that_.

If the guy actually added value by trying to bring the brands here, I would imagine the conversation could change.  Negotiate a commission with FC that is likely much greater than $25 USDC. Can’t knock him for trying to make some money here but he should take the L and move on.