@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ash
@aes
. @v @dwr.eth @horsefacts.eth this is just my opinion, no actual hate, but new channel design is cooked. i always thought channels would evolve into DAOs where members who buy in can vote on things like channel moderators, governance etc. the new implementation feels facebook coded and lackluster.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
horsefacts
@horsefacts.eth
why doesn’t this model support that?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ash
@aes
Not sure i understand your question. Unless im mistaken channels are now centralized to owners and memeber and invites are centralized
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
typeof.eth 🔵
@typeof.eth
FWIW I had a similar negative reaction initially but came around to the idea that private by default actually composes really well. You can make a channel fully open by just posting the invite link, DAO based (I’m planning on doing this for an upcoming project) by automatically inviting DAO members, etc. I think channels have room for improvement and I expect them to evolve, but I had some of your concerns initially and I feel like they can be addressed.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
horsefacts
@horsefacts.eth
that’s not any different than it was before, and a membership model seems to me easier to transition towards DAO or other forms of onchain ownership
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction