Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
A reminder on channels - Channels are *not* decentralized yet - Do not squat channel names with the intention to sell them to brands later; this is extractive behavior - When channels are decentralized and incorporated into the protocol later this year (likely onchain!), then you can do what you want! Just like FIDs
25 replies
29 recasts
280 reactions
Brenner @ Edge City
@brenner.eth
What’s your take on incorporating a mechanic like this into channels? I think this provides a solution to the downsides of squatting while generating protocol revenue, and being configurable on an ongoing basis https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gsDO67VVxyhIyz2p8XyHfEKwYWjMgG6_NsFN3jcy5Vs/edit
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Possibly. I'm more in favor of doing the work to remove value from squatters. You can't get 100% but I view squatting as immoral. You're benefitting from someone else's (in this case the protocol's) hard work for personal gain with minimal work or financial risk.
4 replies
1 recast
11 reactions
Brenner @ Edge City
@brenner.eth
I think another piece here could be that channels (and fnames) have an original sale price based on something like Page Rank
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Kate
@wildkate
Land Value Tax ftw
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Tony
@0xt0ny
It's in the same category as patent trolls, trying to extract without doing the work
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
sno
@on
Certainly not fair considering effort and gain, but I wonder whether that should be morally policed.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
