Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
horsefacts
@horsefacts.eth
IMO a fixed $25 to create a channel is probably far *below* the socially optimal price. Many were squatted in an early speculative land grab and are now abandoned. It's much easier to create a new one than commit to curating it and building a community over the long term. Throwing them onchain and letting Coasean bargaining sort it out seems reckless until the concept can outcompete "squat, gamble, and speculate."
5 replies
6 recasts
48 reactions
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
Maybe let multiple communities have the same name (presumably their underlying IDs will be some smart contract address once decentralized and onchain), and clients can figure out who gets the URL via some sort of curation process (like pagerank or voting/staking).
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Matthew
@matthew
counter point: what social network charges you to make a community? isn't the namespace centralized anyway?
3 replies
1 recast
17 reactions
BoriBori
@captainuhm
I agree that the cost of opening a channel is too small. There are so many indiscriminately made channels, and there are many duplicate channels when searching. we have to open a channel carefully and communicate there, but there are so many channels created. I think it's a social waste.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
helladj™
@helladj.eth
/shirt
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Law❦︎
@traguy.eth
Been wondering how channels were launched and was told by someone it’s gonna require warps to do that Now I’m seeing the fixed $25 thing We pay for it the same way we do for storage yes? Cus i don’t know which to go with lmao
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Freytrades🎩📈
@freymon.eth
this is my own take on this, also i have a suggestion for merkle, if a channel stays inactive for a certain period of time (say 2-3 months) how about auctioning it off to willing buyers, i think that will do really fine. https://warpcast.com/matthew/0x5fc28527
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
