Weekly rewards are meant to support creators who spend their time and energy creating engaging content on Farcaster. 

We've seen some accounts try to trick the algo by coordinating engagement, and redirect rewards towards low effort or uninteresting content. We're making changes to fix this. 

1. The algo will reward diverse weekly engagement. If you get two likes from different people, they'll give you more points than two likes from the same person.

2. The algo may reduce or eliminate points from some accounts based on heuristics (engaging with spammy accounts, only with a particular account, in time patterns that suggest coordination etc) 

These changes will roll out on Tuesday. For more details on how rewards work, see the page below.

https://farcasterhq.notion.site/Farcaster-Creator-Rewards-1f56a6c0c101808f9225c5705ae88fcc

since Pro users are subsidizing Engagement Rewards at the protocol level, when will we have more say on the rewards algo?

Solving public goods value capture. | /impact | book.abundance.id

That doesn't sound very egalitarian to me. Pro is a paid for subscription service and not an option economically for all users.

the pro subscription is def not egalitarian. I don't make the rules tho

There is nothing more powerful in this world than words.

You're arguing that pro subscribers should have more say in how rewards are distributed. That's not egalitarian.

no, I'm arguing that none of us (pro or not) have any real say on the matter

but since Pro accounts are subsidizing the rewards at the protocol level (unlike subscribing to a client) it's incumbent on a protocol to include pro accounts in the governance of said rewards

No it's not. Just because pro subscription payments are being used to fund an app wide initiative it doesn't mean they should have a say in who they go to. 

If they are included it creates a situation where people who have the ability to pay for a pro account can create biased influence over those that don't. I'm surprised to hear you advocate for this.

Impact

This is perhaps one of Dan's most important casts re: farcaster in the past year.

It confirms my thesis that:
1) Merkle doesn't have a sustainable business model for FC in mind
and 
2) FC is squandering its competitive supremacy (having an open graph) by trying hard to be an X/twitter clone with a crypto wallet

The great thing about protocols (over centralized platforms) is that you can create a sustainable model where the interests of users ALIGN with the interests of the protocol (more on that here: https://paragraph.com/@abundance/time-to-put-the-user-in-the-center)

This is not that.

Merkle's current approach indicates that it will be using centralizing vectors (algos, subscriptions, etc.) to keep users "locked-in." 

A better approach would be favoring decentralization - where anyone can build their own client, app, and so on, and plug into a vast interoperable ecosystem powered by the open graph.

I'm not "advocating for it" tho, just like I was against the Pro model to begin with (eg https://farcaster.xyz/abundance/0xd1f34516)

but as I said, I don't make the rules.

Farcaster currently operates as a monarchy. it makes all the decisions on how the protocol, algos, etc work without the community having any real say in the matter

do you think that is preferable to the decisions being more decentralized? I don't

would an egalitarian approach be preferable? absolutely. is Merkle receptive to that? no

in my view more decentralization is still better than no decentralization

it is. the message is when will control over the algo be more decentralized. pros having "more say" doesn't mean "more than non-pros" it means more say than no say, which is the current state

That's not the message in the initial cast.