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.

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.

Reminder, most active people on the network agree with this.

Reminder, most active people on the network agree with this.

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

1. Good feedback on the communication

2. Will get you a refund soon

At the end of the day, you make the rules and must do what you think is best. The channel was indeed inactive, and while I've never had plans to flip it - there's no way for you to have known that. Main point of concern was the lack of communication and refund.

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.

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??

Photographer + Channel Owner /lightchasers + /nature 
https://linktr.ee/jlcolton 
https://app.icebreaker.xyz 

Until it's decentralized and then I can't do anything.

Founder /hodlhq ⬗ Host /rtfkt /fcny /warped ⬗ RTFKT Creator - /clonexnyc ⬗ Phygital Hoarder ⬗ Degenerate Gamer ⬗ icebreaker.xyz/hodlceo

Let's start with the channel owner / moderator should be active on Farcaster more broadly.

There was a single cast in the channel (not from them). Since hard to make a case it a a niche topic / membership with a purpose.

What about cases where you've set up a framework for the channels niche and membership, contribute to it being active... but it's just you?

Investor, Trader, & Market analyst. 📊 Web3 explorer👾🟪 Degentleman🎩

 /smellcheckmate 🌐

We are going to do a broader clean up soon.

Could I purchase a dumped channel from you?

I guess it was created for the same reason.

Memes

Cryptoart across mediums. Host of /cryptoart, sharing my work via /muse –  💌 tg: @maxjackson 🔗 linktr.ee/mxjxn 
Ally 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈

Channels will be decentralized eventually. Need to keep iterating centralized for now.

Will channels become more decentralized? Do you think that in a future where there's 10 million users, different clients can host their own /memes that point at different NFT contracts?

So you would totally proceed differently if that wasnt the case?

Those are fair points 


But you guys held all the power

Will be decentralized (like user accounts / profiles) soon enough

while i see your point too, this is a reason why people dislike about web2 platforms and are here

I don’t disagree with your reasoning, BUT

You should probably add a disclaimer to the “buy channel” flow

I would say you’ve “been clear” in the sense that you’re on the record with how it works, but it’s not necessarily well communicated

I empathize that you’re being practical here, and 6 months is pretty long, but it’s bad PR, there are always nuances and edge cases. 

IMO Zora could easily have used a variation on the wow theme, avoiding this entirely

The right move.

I really hate speculation around consumer

The action, but more than that your message is another red flag in a sea of red flags.
And exactly the reason why people are leaving and new people not joining.

You just have no morals and impossible to trust you

I have an ethical dilemma here. We start from the premise that decentralization is better. However you do something you know you won't be able to do when it's decentralized and therefore you are acting in a way that in an allegedly better protocol would be wrong: judge and executioner.