Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Update on channels 1. It's not a top priority right now 2. Channels are not expiring; if we end up moving forward with an expiration, we will give advanced notice; consider it an indefinite grace period 3. When it becomes a priority, we will resolve abandoned and squatted channels as part of the expiration; we will likely decentralize channel creation at that point — however, only when a top priority 4. What's higher priority than channels? a. Continue to improve frames UX, especially with regard to onchain interactions b. Improve discovery across Farcaster for anyone building / creating something onchain c. Snapchain — need to scale the underlying protocol d. Cheaper sign ups — top request from several existing apps with large user bases considering integrating with Farcaster e. Migrating Sign in with Farcaster to Farcaster Connect (see FIP) to allow other clients to provide auth for apps / frames f. Rewards and onboarding improvements around invites
21 replies
15 recasts
134 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
5. Why aren't channels more of a priority? Our sense is channels work when Farcaster itself is growing, i.e. channels are not a growth driver for Farcaster, more a feature / tool for deepening engagement
9 replies
4 recasts
64 reactions
Justin Hunter
@polluterofminds
Does that engagement lead to retention? And how do you think about balancing retention vs. growth?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Engagement leads to retention but I have yet to see a channel breaking out as a reason to join Farcaster. (I spend a decent amount of time on crypto Twitter and looking at who is signing up and where they engage.)
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Ghostlinkz
@ghostlinkz.eth
A channel won’t break out if the creator doesn’t truly own it. The whole purpose of Farcaster was decentralization and ownership in the value you create. Who is going to bet big on building communities on FC if channels are not a priority?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
