Justin Hunter
@polluterofminds
Listen, everyone is a critic and a Monday morning quarterback but I feel like channels were such a big missed opportunity for Farcaster. For the protocol and the client. Under-invested and not explored nearly long enough to definitively say they wouldn’t grow DAU, imo.
11 replies
6 recasts
64 reactions
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
I have shared this with @sahil, and I have also described parts of the concept in older casts. This is my idea on how channels should be implemented. It's very simple, it's protocol-based, and even allows users to use clients that are not aware of the design. It could also be implemented today, without support from Farcaster. The only major drawback is that the design is not compatible with the current channel implementation (based on FIP-2). But we are early, and I think we can make breaking changes, if it makes sense. We should not be tied forever to a design that is not even part of the protocol, if it doesn't work. https://gist.github.com/vrypan/3cb9c7cbc380fa29e3b3e1293f001161
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Justin Hunter
@polluterofminds
I like this a lot. The only thing I’d like to be different in my perfect case is that I don’t think there should be gatekeeping on channels and we should use filters/ai/other tools to surface the best content in said channels
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
But that's up to each channel. And btw, you could have a client that ignores some of the rules, and shows all mentions of the channel fname.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Justin Hunter
@polluterofminds
Good point
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction