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
sahil
@sahil
YES! option B it gives greater design surface for communities and form factors on the protocol. membership/moderation can easily be handled client side (we're building Cura to solve for this) we're happy to float a proposal and support implementation - we'll make all channel management functionality available on cura from day 1 of transition. - we'll ensure backward compatibility to preserve existing channels - we'll make it easy for channel related read/write happen on farcaster app through mini app rendering.
0 reply
3 recasts
9 reactions
