Data

Farcaster

FC Protocol Stats (March vs April): 

March Total Casts: 8,720,781 
April Total Casts: 35,916,189
Growth: 311.76%

March Active Users: 103,933
April Active Users: 142,257
Growth: 36.91%

Data via farcasterinsights.com

FC Top 30 Active Users (March vs April) 

I don't enjoy saying this, but there's a significant amount of spam and bots inflating the protocol stats. Don't take my word for it, examine the data. Perhaps we should start saying active "accounts" rather than "users."

I like the accounts / users distinction

Farcaster is a protocol, as long as its rules are followed it intentionally makes no distinction 

users are a subjective subset of this that might map to unique human beings or unique human beings who’s content I don’t think is spammy or some other definition

What is very much needed is a formal (and thorough!) spam and platform manipulation policy 

Here is X’s, as an example

Building @warpcast and @farcaster / dad / like to read, cook, ski, code

What is very much needed is a formal (and thorough!) spam and platform manipulation policy 

Here is X’s, as an example https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-manipulation

I like running, poker and oysters | Founder, Social Forensics (SocialForensics.com) | Berkeley & UPenn | Learning to listen

Elevating onchain creators @brightmoments @ampsfun @nodefoundation

I am referring to mitigating against CIB (coordinated inauthentic behavior) and platform manipulation, more broadly

Terms like "spam," "bots," and "spam bots" are thrown around with great frequency.. when it's actually a far more nuanced discussion

And I am not talking about the protocol layer here

Policy = clarity

twitter is widely argued to be one of the worst large scale social media platforms at fighting spam bots

how would having a legalese policy for a protocol help improve what developers actually care about, which is quality users for their applications?