Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

horsefacts pfp
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."
5 replies
6 recasts
48 reactions

Matthew pfp
Matthew
@matthew
counter point: what social network charges you to make a community? isn't the namespace centralized anyway?
3 replies
1 recast
17 reactions

Liang @ degencast.wtf 🎩  pfp
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 pfp
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