Dan Romero on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

20 recasts

21 reactions

Dan Romero pfp

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

47 replies

37 recasts

350 reactions

Dan Romero pfp

If you're unsure about new a channel, assuming good faith usage: - Just go for it! Don't overthink it. - If still worried, feel free to DC me about - Will approach a future conflict with the username policy approach - Don't lie to me :) https://warpcast.notion.site/Username-policy-f4f3b1c024b24b3bbc8aaca609b3558e

1 reply

1 recast

23 reactions

Brenner pfp

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

3 reactions

dimsome pfp

- Channels are *not* decentralized yet - Therefore we have the right to take is away? - Do not squat channel names with the intention to sell them to brands later; this is extractive behavior - Then we need a better first come first serve system, if they would have been fully decentralised, what would you do then?

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Miko Matsumura pfp

So what I'm hearing then is that when channels are decentralized then we will be able to squat channel names with the intention to sell them to brands later?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Coop pfp

@coopahtroopa.eth

DWR: Don't squat channels you can't sell them *yet* Every ENS squatter ever: it's showtime

2 replies

1 recast

22 reactions

BORED 🥱 pfp

People are 100% squatting.

0 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

Thibauld pfp

Dan, I am afraid your tweet will have the exact opposite effect of the one you're trying to achieve. Please say this instead 🙏 "All squatters (as determined by us) will get their channel removed prior to protocol incorporation". Otherwise, your tweet is a complete "Go" signal for squatters 😓

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

jalil pfp

Idea re pathway (not onchain) AFAIK channels are just casts that belong to a certain parentUrl on the protocol. Why not use DNS and/or OpenGraph to customize how channels (other URLs) are displayed in clients? - Title = OG title - Image = manifest app icon / favicon - Admins = specified in new OG-esque property

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

welp 🎩🌸 pfp

For the decentralization component, have you guys considered adopting a similar approach to FIP-4 w/ fnames/ens? fchannel names would still be seizable so squatting before impending decentralization doesn't make sense. guaranteed ownership would be through using ens channels

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

KUSH🍄🎩 pfp

All the band names are already taken by squatters. I've been calling this for the last couple of days. I don't know how it can be stopped. It's not going to be good. Eli5, I'm interested in getting my username as a channel but I don't quite understand warps when there's actual layer 2 solutions like base, etc. thx!!

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Mike | Abundance pfp

Mike | Abundance

Any ETA (quarter/month would be good) on when channels will be decentralized and if the thinking is making them like FIDs or something else?

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Wall Street Guy 🎩🍖 pfp

Wall Street Guy 🎩🍖

@wallstreetguy.eth

I understand what are you trying to do, but for me it is not necessary at all: 1) We used to have Facebook squater, Twitter squater,... it is a fair competition for everyone. If the squatter actually build a good channel, the brand will soon buy back/ fund for the channel to keep operating.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Mike | Abundance pfp

Mike | Abundance

Isn't there already a built in mechanism in Farcaster where impersonators can lose their name (but not FID)? Why not apply that also to channels/"brands"?

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Manbearpigv2🧾 pfp

Manbearpigv2🧾

I think ppl only care bc it was bankless it’s pretty known that CT hates bankless bc… well they are scumbags.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Callum Wanderloots ✨ pfp

Callum Wanderloots ✨

@wanderloots.eth

understood! Had no intention of squatting, just enjoying being able to curate my feed in a more intentional way than the traditional social media stream ✨ how will they be incorporated to the protocol? will it be tied to the FID that created them? That was my original understanding

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

llamafacts pfp

@llamafacts.eth

Channels should just be numeric IDs and each client should have their own naming system. So clients can profit a bit by "verifying" established brands. So I could have a channel named "Apple" it just won't be verified and there could be many "Apple" channels. Then there will be 0 value for squatters.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ballzerino 🎩 pfp

Ballzerino 🎩

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

staRpauSe 🍡🎩 pfp

staRpauSe 🍡🎩

"Do not squat channel names with the intention to sell them to brands later; this is extractive behavior" why do you want us to be poor?

1 reply

0 recast

8 reactions

Isaac 🎩🍖👽🦖🦄⬆️ pfp

Isaac 🎩🍖👽🦖🦄⬆️

Squatters are spending money/warps to invest in the potential future of the protocol. The protocol may not succeed. It’s like buying land that’s not developed. Who knows if the land will become valuable. When sold, there’s tax. This is so that part of the gains can be used to build the common goods.

2 replies

0 recast

3 reactions