rough thoughts on channels

- channels are a spectrum between public topics and private clubs
- community gets stronger the further you go towards clubs on the spectrum
- topics don't require ownership and membership. clubs do.
- topics are more useful to new users
- farcaster channels currently combine topics and clubs using a single design, which leads to complexity and user confusion.
- to effectively address the needs of clubs, we need to differentiate and properly design for topics to avoid forcing the wrong solution on either. it's not feasible to just find a solution for clubs and ignore topics.
- topics must be fully supported in farcaster app. clubs can be partially supported in farcaster app.

still thinking through what the best solution is.

potential direction (see quoted cast for context):

topics: 
like hashtags, any user can post with a tag, and you can browse a feed of that tag/topic. 
example fip2 format: "topic://memes"

clubs: 
ownership, membership, and metadata based on nfts. posting, management, advanced feeds only available in third party apps. simple algo feed on farcaster app.
example fip2 format: "club://8453/0x0ab8bff....9cde80"

i think the above requires no protocol changes. optionally, expand link spec in protocol to allow following any arbitrary url so the follow graph can be decentralized.

pros:
- clearly splits topics from clubs
- no namespace to manage
- minimizes protocol changes
- gives club owners control over their clubs
- gives new and existing users the ability to follow and post their interests without dealing with membership

cons:
- no ability to post in clubs or manage members from farcaster app
- no ability to mention a club in cast text because there is no namespace.
- managing membership and metadata with nfts onchain might not be ideal.

strong cons, but there is no perfect solution and we have to compromise somewhere.

feedback?