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?

If the only option is this or nothing changes, then maybe yes? Channels as they are rn are a dead end. But, as others put it, this would almost definitely kill channels.

Maybe there could be another MM app dedicated just for channels? Could be a valuable forcing function for fleshing out the protocol, but I understand the hesitation of bifurcating focus. (I'd prefer the main client was channel focused but I assume that's not what's working for onboarding rn.)

I think that sovereign channels is the one credible path of keeping high quality signal if Farcaster succeeds at x100 growth (rather than degrading into a cesspool like every other scaled social network). Does that mean it's a good problem to have later? I dunno. I'd rather it was part of the growth strategy from the start.

A doodler and computerer. I like permissive/permissionless open source, smart contracts, p2p systems, room-scale VR, and NixOS.

shazow.net

Currently: WhatsABI

We don’t have bandwidth for a second app unfortunately.