Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
horsefacts
@horsefacts.eth
IMO a fixed $25 to create a channel is probably far *below* the socially optimal price. Many were squatted in an early speculative land grab and are now abandoned. It's much easier to create a new one than commit to curating it and building a community over the long term. Throwing them onchain and letting Coasean bargaining sort it out seems reckless until the concept can outcompete "squat, gamble, and speculate."
6 replies
0 recast
25 reactions
Matthew
@matthew
counter point: what social network charges you to make a community? isn't the namespace centralized anyway?
2 replies
1 recast
11 reactions
Liang @ degencast.wtf 🎩
@degencast.eth
the same goes for paying for fid and storage. hubs are not getting paid. so charge user? can't we figure out a better way to weed out spammers?
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Matthew
@matthew
the fid makes more sense because it's paying for storage at the protocol level. But channels are entirely centralized, and they're just a parent_url under the hood.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Liang @ degencast.wtf 🎩
@degencast.eth
Yeah. Although it's not actually possible to gate it right? https://warpcast.com/liang/0x3820d2f2
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Matthew
@matthew
can't gate it — anyone can put any parent url they want. warpcast doesn't properly render any non-wc parent_url. @dylsteck.eth made a great suggestion, could compromise by just showing the metadata from the url just to allow for more experimentation.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Liang @ degencast.wtf 🎩
@degencast.eth
wat? meaning if I cast with a non-wc parent_url, my followers cannot see it at all ?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Matthew
@matthew
I think they can see the cast, but it shows up weird—iirc it just says "content" as the top level thing
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
