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.

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?

The challenge with channels is there’s no consensus on what they should be.

1. Distribution vs. niche interest

2. Open but tons of mod work vs. Closed but frustrating for new users

A lot of this is a result of our iteration on the feature and not having anything work. 

A simpler version not dependent on the Farcaster app—but not emphasized by it, would most likely mean other app developers could solve for the various cases. 

And now with mini apps, you could imagine channel-specific clients as mini apps.

The challenge with channels is there’s no consensus on what they should be.

1. Distribution vs. niche interest

2. Open but tons of mod work vs. Closed but frustrating for new users

A lot of this is a result of our iteration on the feature and not having anything work. 

A simpler version not dependent on the Farcaster app—but not emphasized by it, would most likely mean other app developers could solve for the various cases. 

And now with mini apps, you could imagine channel-specific clients as mini apps.

https://farcaster.xyz/dwr.eth/0x19ce197c
https://farcaster.xyz/dwr.eth/0xd7e9b71b

GM Farcaster (podcast)

Cohost of /gmfarcaster, a live stream Farcaster news show.  Engineer. Mom x 3.

29 minutes of Farcaster news to start your day with your hosts @adrienne & @nounishprof
/gmfarcaster  gmfarcaster.com

If I couldn’t cast directly into channels from here, I’d probably just stop using channels. We don’t use our @gmfarcaster acct much because it’s easier to use /gmfarcaster — that way both @adrienne and I plus others can cast easily in there. 

If there was a major switch, I’d probably just shift to using @gmfarcaster more and my guess is that’s what would happen with most brands/projects/token channels. That would be unfortunate imo. 

For other channels, if it was as easy as using a hashtag like #food or #travel that might be fine. What I don’t think will happen is growth from channels if it’s required to use another client to use them. I think it will just kill them.

building /gmfarcaster network |
blockchain ENT prof |  ⌐◧-◧ Nouncillor, Nouner, BuilderDAO community resident /builder

coinbasewallet

Ethereum builder & people connector. Juicebox, Revnet, Defifa & Footy App. My innie posts stuff on kmacb.eth.sucks

great point, but i think we'll naturally evolve how we cast or consume channels once we have a great UX for hoping over different apps or form factors on farcaster. 
https://farcaster.xyz/sahil/0x5d9d0fed

But that requires a major redo of our mini app that’s not designed for it. There’s only a couple set things you can cast from the mini app. The GM Farcaster mini app is more like an extension of our channel and the bot. 

I think he’s referring to clients like Cura and Zapper. I appreciate what they are building but it’s unlikely that brands/projects will use multiple clients. Maybe the UX would be so good there that we stop using the FC client and use that instead. I suppose that’s possible. And right now the /coinbasewallet beta doesn’t allow for casting in channels but you can see the channel tag.

Is ‘from here’ the Farcaster client? Assuming so, how diff is the ux if you open the gmfc ‘mini’app in the Farcaster app for & cast into it from there? 

It’s probably better as we’d gain attribution eg I know who opens footy app & which pages they hit. non repudiation ftw. That’s crazy valuable insight that only MerkleM is seeing today. 

I’m imagining the ‘frame’ like ux for apps will disappear overtime making this a silkier ux. Every app with its own feed & governance (think spam filter) sounds pretty powerful to me.