Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
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.
39 replies
3 recasts
176 reactions
raulonastool.eth 🎩 🏰
@raulonastool
Refund for sure. But it's probably better for the channel name to be expired than taking ownership of it. This should also come with some update to the channel creation process, which requires further approvals or proof before creating a channel for cities or brands.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Channels are FIP-2 now. We would likely migrate that to a system similar to FID / fnames so you could swap names while still keeping the channel.
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
