Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
If you're unhappy with the new channels format — please reply to this cast with specific feedback! The more detailed and specific, the better I can help solve your challenges.
29 replies
6 recasts
70 reactions
Ghostlinkz
@ghostlinkz.eth
1. My main concern is that the mod bots might go offline or their signer could be deleted, resulting in the loss of a lot of curation effort. Im also assuming these free bots will become paywalled eventually.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Spencer Graham 🧢
@spengrah.eth
imo best approach here is for mod bot providers to use a signer on *your* fid. that way you can authorize multiple bot providers, just like you can use multiple clients with the same fid
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Ghostlinkz
@ghostlinkz.eth
Sounds like a good idea. If the bots go away, your signer is still owned by you and as long as you don’t delete it then the data is safe. @jtgi @betashop.eth what do you guys think about this?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Jason Goldberg
@betashop.eth
I don’t think that works because currently if you revoke a signor key it removes all the actions done by that signor , so you’d lose all those likes done by the mod
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Ghostlinkz
@ghostlinkz.eth
Isn’t the same true if you revoked or deleted the signer you are using for the bot right now? I prefer for users to trust themselves instead of someone else.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Jason Goldberg
@betashop.eth
We aren’t using signers for the Airstack bot we didn’t feel like the user should have to trust the bot that way to take any action as the user So we set it up only such that the user adds airstack as moderator
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction