Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
downshift
@downshift.eth
farcaster desperately needs a viable competitor to Warpcast
12 replies
0 recast
52 reactions
Samir 🎩
@0xsamir
I am sure @super is a viable competitor @woj.eth
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Jarrett
@jarrettr
I know a lot of people here have the money and are tipping way more than $10 a month, but the subsciption model makes supercast a non starter for most @stringz /stringz is pretty early but is decent on mobile @herocast /herocast is open source (and free) on desktop
1 reply
0 recast
7 reactions
new era
@logosiasis.eth
That’s fair, I don’t see with what it offers that for me personally paying for the subscription is better than paying for yearly storage on wc
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Jarrett
@jarrettr
I'm pretty sure you have to pay for farcaster storage on top of the supercast subscription too
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Samir 🎩
@0xsamir
I think so, the storage is for Farcaster not for Warpcast or Supercast!
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Jarrett
@jarrettr
Exactly, I think the community here often mixes Farcaster and Warpcast up VERY often which causes a bunch of confusion to those who aren't aware that Warpcast is just a client. I personally just didn't know if part of the Supercast sub went towards storage or not somehow
2 replies
1 recast
2 reactions
Samir 🎩
@0xsamir
@woj.eth could kindly clarify this point
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
new era
@logosiasis.eth
Ah ok, I do understand the difference between fc and wc. I think my confusion is I assumed fc was onchain protocol and wc was the client for access, and I assumed the storage fee wouldn’t be fc because why would I need to annually pay to keep onchain data from being erased. So I guess I am wrong here?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
