Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
Zinger ↑
@zinger
Hard truth: most of the replies to this complaining about how channels aren’t in the protocol are just cope Channels not in the protocol? Build your own channels. Direct casts not in the protocol? Build your own direct casts. That’s what Warpcast did. What you’ll come to realize (after a bunch of wasted time and effort) is that channels are a product problem, not an engineering one Apps that only focus on one or a few channels don’t make sense, not enough of a wedge or retention mechanism, partially due to how early we still are but also people don’t want to download a separate app for each of their interests Apps that focus on all channels and encourage you to check them individually are too much work for the user (see Discord, Telegram, etc) so you end up back with an algo feed to surface the most interesting content in one place Building a social app is a retention (and GTM) problem for the most part, not a technical one — and it’s hard as fuck https://warpcast.com/zinger/0xa6906bb7
7 replies
0 recast
85 reactions
ns
@nickysap
"Apps that focus on all channels and encourage you to check them individually are too much work for the user (see Discord, Telegram, etc)" Respectfully, I'm not sure I understand your analogy here. Those apps have hundreds of millions of users, billions combined. Most of their growth was driven by referrals from other social apps. Focused channels have proven to be insanely popular on other networks, even ones that encourage discoverability via algorithmic feed (Reddit). What about more esoteric networks like 4chan, which are even more "challenging" for the user? Still 20MM+ users. Just because something is hard doesn't mean it's not worth doing, especially when the model has proven successful in many cases.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Steen!!!
@usersteen.eth
Agree - I think the framing of channels for topics (as discussed by @dwr.eth in the ama vid) doesn't feel right. Community has to be the framing.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Very well could be! But then we need to change the shape of the product pretty significantly. One of the reasons we haven't decentralized existing channels. They aren't working well enough.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Steen!!!
@usersteen.eth
For additional context: I've pretty much given up on managing /photography. I lack the time and never had incentive to spend it bc the path to monetization is difficult. There's limited tooling to make it better w/o a dev (requires time and $) . Theoretically it should help photographers build an audience, but the larger issue is that it's not a clearly defined community (more of a topic). There are a million other competing photography-related channels. One idea was that it could be the hub that connects the other channels, but yea. For brands and more clearly defined communities I see a much clearer path to improving the experience. In these cases it's more about facilitating comms for members/customers and funneling to other touchpoints rather than directly monetizing anything. Maybe moxie channel tokens fit into all this, but that feels like a tangent.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
