owned this channel for many months

just got yoinked

lmfao

1. Your last cast was 6 months ago until today
2. You were the only member of the channel and it had a single cast

Will refund you the warps some point soon when we clean up.

We've been clear channels are not decentralized, not an asset for you to sell later. Use it in good faith or lose it.

Eventually, they will be decentralized and then we won't be able to change it. 

But that's not the case today.

squatters or not, IMO this is not cool. They paid for the channel. They get to keep it. 

Actually, wtf?? How can you yoink someone's channel??? that they paid for??

Crypto enthusiast, ethics, movies and photography.

Founder of /gentlemanswagers

1. They rented the channel from the protocol for a year.

2. If you're not using the channel, then it's a negative externality on the protocol.

3. When it's decentralized, we won't be able to do anything. Until then, a judgement call on what's best use for the protocol.

thx for the reply, but still not cool. No2 is nowhere in the terms and conditions (IIRC). 

your judgement call or not, this is what's wrong with stuff being decentralized. and IMO this is a wrong call. just bcs someone did sth with wow (a pumpfun clone, so nothing groundbreaking or anything like that), you steel someones channel and give it to someone else? 

that's not cool, or has anything to do with protocol. 

how much warps are the new owner paying for it? And how many DCs were exchanged before you decided to yoink someones channel?

What should we do with egregious examples of squatted channels?

I'm going to call this individual out since it's clearly squatting — @0xg — is sitting on a bunch of city channels and not actively building communities:

/denver /la /losangeles /nyc /newyorkcity /newyork /sanfrancisco

(Also the multiple variations of city names with no activity is clear squatting and when there are active communities in /los-angeles /sf /new-york.)

A few other thoughts:

1. We have a no squatting policy for fnames and we allow ENS for a name that isn't governed by that policy.

2. We never advertised channels as something you buy and own forever. Has been centralized and experimental since we allowed anyone to create a channel last December.

3. I'm sympathetic to someone who is good faith trying to build a community, but that's not squatting.

4. Squatting is squishy, know it when you see, not deterministic.

5. Ultimately, squatters are massive negative externality on the network. It's parasitic, anti-social behavior.

1. Active people on Farcaster agree with this approach. You're in the minority. See comments below.

2. If they aren't using the channel, it's not adding value the protocol. That's straitghtforward.

3. When it's decentralized, which it will be in the future, then I can't do anything about it.

4. Pragmatism > ideology

1. Active people on Farcaster agree with this approach. You're in the minority. See comments below.

2. If they aren't using the channel, it's not adding value the protocol. That's straitghtforward.

3. When it's decentralized, which it will be in the future, then I can't do anything about it.

4. Pragmatism > ideology

https://warpcast.com/dwr.eth/0x953f3b18

1. fair enough. I'm not speaking for anyone but me. That's why I said "IMO".

2. "not using the channel" now can become "they're paying more" tomorrow. I'm not saying you will or will not do that. Just that you CAN. That's my point with all this. That would be a bad look. Again, IMO.

3. fair enough. this cannot come soon enough. nothing against your point of view, just playing devils advocate

4. code is law.