brian is live on unlonely on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

brian is live on unlonely pfp

brian is live on unlonely

there’s a clear lack of conversation around the channels stuff on farcaster. echo chambers are bad and we do a disservice to farcaster long term if we: - always agree 100% with what @dwr.eth says and does / dont hold people accountable - are afraid to speak out about things, specifically the larger accounts here

29 replies

2 recasts

41 reactions

brian is live on unlonely pfp

brian is live on unlonely

squatters are not ideal neither is dan taking channels let’s talk about it! what are the pros and cons? why do people here avoid these topics?

2 replies

0 recast

7 reactions

Ivy pfp

dans been pretty clear about the governance model of benevolent dictator, proper protocol governance shifts the issue from holding one person accountable to many

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

links 🏴 pfp

I think Dan did the right thing, TBH, but I also think he could have done it in a better way. Telling the community it was going to happen before it happened would have gotten all bad feels out of the way, made community feel in the loop. This way just made FC and Bankless seem more shady than they are.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Pierre Pauze 🔵 🚽 pfp

Pierre Pauze 🔵 🚽

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

Nobody is afraid of Dan's retribution lol it's just a nothingburger - 1 of ? 3 relevant things: 1. No squatting fnames + channels has been Dan's position from Day 1 and he's never wavered in the messaging 2. Channels aren't in the protocol yet and that's also v clear 3. Context matters and this is the context lol

9 replies

7 recasts

45 reactions

rish pfp

why is this in bad takes?

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Q🎩 pfp

Bankless should have the channel “for the greater good” but they should have had to pay a premium. Squatters suck, but that’s part of an open free market no?

4 replies

0 recast

4 reactions

Austin pfp

@austinmccollom

Perhaps it should be clearer what is self-custody and what isn’t. Set expectations early.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

wave pfp

This is a pretty good take

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Michael 🎩🐹 pfp

Michael 🎩🐹

@michaelsullivan

I think from a community standpoint it's important to avoid hacks and phishing by brands having their channels, but having dwr be the arbiter is dangerous and I have a feeling him being able to nerf any account/channel at any time for any reason is why people are afraid to speak up.

3 replies

0 recast

4 reactions

ash pfp

I don’t disagree with the decision as much as I disagree with how it was communicated.

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩 pfp

Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩

I don’t think squatting & extorting like in the past is a good behavior to encourage. If he was honestly using the channel then great. I’d say too bad for Bankless. But just trying to speculate & hold for ransom, nah. Otherwise there’s likelihood of confusion (tm) & somebody could get rekt in the process.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

mithril0x.eth 🎩🔵⛓️ pfp

mithril0x.eth 🎩🔵⛓️

Damn bro that went in

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

keccers pfp

I ripped the team a new asshole re: uptime and app stability. I’m not afraid to say anything. It’s just that DWR was right

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Carlos pfp

This is far from a bad take, thanks for bringing it up. I am sure Dan did what he thought was right for the protocol (growth) but it does set a bad precedent (now we all know what do do when we want “our channel back”).

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter Makhnatch pfp

Peter Makhnatch

@petermakhnatch

Unlonely debate when??

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩 pfp

Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩

And there’s a lot of channel discussion and a host feedback group dc that dwr has been earnestly listening to. So there’s that.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

kenny 🎩 pfp

the biggest issue I have with it is drawing the line at Bankless like it's a brand that no one would have any qualms with there's a whole population of crypto natives that aren't fans of Bankless they're a big name, but not the untouchable brand that this decision assumes they are (imo)

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Joe Toledano pfp

It's not exactly 1-to-1 but forcing someone's hand here is reminiscent of Elon taking the handle 'X' from a user (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/elon-musks-takes-x-handle-longtime-twitter-user-rcna96074). That said, personally am not very keen on rent-seeking, extractive actions, so not that mad at this

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction