Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
Haole
@haole
Community projects, lacking funding and protocol revenue, are much more eager for new users than the Warpcast team. Registration fees are necessary for decentralized protocols, converting spammy users into revenue. On the other hand, we could allocate some free registrations to community clients, who can use other centralized methods to attract high-quality users.
6 replies
1 recast
7 reactions
Yuuu
@web3-yuuu.eth
Maybe free quota is not a good idea, because it breaks farcaster's economic model. In my view, community client could find a free registration business model, and earn back the registration fee from user usage.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Haole
@haole
If clients can easily find a business model, they don't need to build on Farcaster. If their business model relies on Farcaster, they want more existing users here. It's a chicken-and-egg problem.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Yuuu
@web3-yuuu.eth
还是用中文说吧，我英语水平聊着实在费劲。你说的这点没错，我所提到的商业模式肯定是指基于Farcaster的，比如说某天有个farcaster的frame或者miniapp火爆了，那客户端就可以免费给用户注册，然后在用户支付时收一笔手续费，来把这个钱赚回来
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Haole
@haole
嗯，warpcast团队已经收了很多注册费，也没见他们给用户免费注册。连官方都没动力这样做了，很好奇其他第三方会有什么更强的动机或更好的盈利方式。 现在大部分clients都是围绕FC social graph做事情，没有足够的用户，很难有破圈的爆款。
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Yuuu
@web3-yuuu.eth
注册费按Dan的说法是存在一个多签地址里等待后续分配，我倾向于不是给Warpcast的，而且注册费本身就是协议层面的，不应该算Warpcast团队营收。倒是Warps充值以及交易时应该会有一些额外的收益，能算是他们的营收。 第三方盈利方式的问题其实我也没想好，只是从道理上说，既想要去中心化协议，又想要免费（或者近乎免费）且用户体验好，那只有这样搞了。
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
