Farcaster

why don’t people form small groups (3-5) around an interest, create a channel, and cast/reply to each other? 

it could:
1. amplify reach (shared audiences)  
2. create richer, more dynamic discussions (shared effort)
3. build deeper connections  

maybe it feels like extra work or it’s hard to find each other?

/ted | exploring the onchain frontier | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina

this sounds like the public/private clubhouse-like group chat @erik and I think @dwr.eth discussed at one point

why wouldn't they just create a group chat for it instead?

backend eng; full-stack curious

writer, icon, retired rave queen

so from what i can tell this would mean that the collab is between the group of ppl and the network?

you could ask this of the many private group chats, and i think the answer from many would be is that there is an incentive for ppl that hosts those chats to collab with themselves and not one to collab with the network right now

the private group chats could inject energy back into FC by taking their discussions to channels that let the public view them, i think ppl are more likely to talk about coffee in their group chat than elsewhere

let me clarify: 3 people are casting about topic A that interests them, but separately in their own silos

if they decide to cast in one place (instead of silos), then they’d end up amplifying topic A in a way that benefits them (+ the network) much more

it’s a marketing suggestion (collabs), not a product one

iirc the model being discussed was to have ppl who could view the group chat but couldn't say anything? hence hybrid model / what channels functionally are now