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
eirrann | he/him🎩🔵
@eirrann.eth
I say pro-rated refund question to which I have no answer: are there topics with such broad appeal and applicability like these city names, and words like /art, that someone shouldn't be able to "own" the channel? I recognize the need to have an engaged person or group to properly cultivate any channel, but some things seem too general to be 'owned'
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
From our experience over the last year, for the vast majority of cases, generalized topics don't work. Some exceptions. You don't go to food.com for all of your food needs (recipes, photos, etc). Why should you have a single big channel? https://warpcast.com/dwr.eth/0x96bde48c
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
