Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Bitfloorsghost pfp
Bitfloorsghost
@bitfloorsghost.eth
i don't really understand if this means for all of farcaster or just those that have fan tokens already - i really hope it's the latter, but even then either way, why do we need to monetize every channel? it feels like basically paygating the entire platform, and i've been very vocal in the past about how i feel regards paid membership in groups - as a rule, it's not worth it
13 replies
3 recasts
25 reactions
sartocratesšŸƒ pfp
sartocratesšŸƒ
@sartocrates
you are the only one on here i feel like that is like a veteran etc etc that is saying this loudly - we are still trying to understand but it is very confusing and if you are in fact stating it correctly (how itā€™s seeming to me) i agree with you strongly and itā€™s disappointing
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Deployer pfp
Deployer
@deployer
Where is this posted?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Kaido pfp
Kaido
@tamey
When I saw this, a voice in my head said BFG not gonna like this I donā€™t think itā€™s right to monetize channels too
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
J Finn šŸŽ© pfp
J Finn šŸŽ©
@jdotfinn
some will be effectively open via Open Rank and other mechanisms I believe, not every channel has to go down that path
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ivy pfp
Ivy
@ivy
i hate 'skin in the game' so much like if i make a channel to talk about star trek what does 'skin in the game' mean??? imo this is just a sneaky way of rent seeking from the protocol owner and ppl should be calling it out
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
nuel. pfp
nuel.
@nuelprime
maybe a lot of things are getting paygated or iā€™m just overthinking it it could be indirect paygating
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
whimsi pfp
whimsi
@whimsi.eth
although i donā€™t like the idea of monetising every channel, iā€™ve come to terms with it by seeing it more like buying shares in communities that you actively take part in and in return, you get paid in dividends based on the communityā€™s success and iā€™m buying my own fan tokens because iā€™m seeing moxie as a shot at a new ecosystem in a future world paradigm shift where traditional jobs get lost to ai so buying my own fan token is basically investing in myself as an ecosystem - currently thinking up ways of creating value for holding my FTs that isnā€™t just ā€˜make moxie or sell for profitā€™
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Terry Bain pfp
Terry Bain
@terrybain
Iā€™m pretty sure itā€™s up to the channel owner whether itā€™s token gated or not.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Neptune pfp
Neptune
@neptune
makes 0 sense. bring back the optional tipping meta. no need to force token gated chats.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jared šŸŽ© pfp
Jared šŸŽ©
@javabu.eth
/politics will always be free. Or as close to free as possible.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
O+< pfp
O+<
@spitfunkolips
channels will have implicit deny to start, so maybe just another mechanism to allow you to gain membership other than an invite code? dan stated this is the clearest path to decentralizing the channels (bringing them into the protocol?) and possibly alternative to pinning a frame with code to make channel ā€˜openā€™. Idk Iā€™m trying to give them benefit of doubt as well and sounds like they are still iterating so maybe nothing set in stone yet. tokengating everything would be a death sentence imo
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Kaā“‚ļøalšŸ”µšŸŽ© pfp
Kaā“‚ļøalšŸ”µšŸŽ©
@kamadin.eth
You donā€™t believe in all this?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
HamizIbrahim pfp
HamizIbrahim
@h2-10
Like facebook in the past šŸ˜‚
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction