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?

been thinking about channels ever since @ted posted this

how does farcaster reward people for going deeper on a subject? how does it incentivize @matthewb to share about drinking chocolates or @keccers.eth to go deep on her health stack?

basically…i want to replace my reddit searches with farcaster searches

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

The Farcaster formerly known as Kchamp. Books, beats, bodybuilding, bright ideas and beautiful things.

katherinechampagne.com

building /juicebox | product marketing & growth | prev. NounsDAO, RAW DAO | learning to code

when you cast in a channel, it goes out to *your* followers, not channel followers

and data shows ppl don't click into channels, they just scroll their home feed

it costs $25 to create a ~hashtag~ that doesn't get you better distribution, but lets you restrict ppl and style a page

there's more, but that's the gist

i went deep on channels a while ago, gave a lot of feedback, built a quick product (heyjoinatlas.com/channels) and i think now it's ok that channels are a header url with a fancy page

i don't think this is a problem farcaster can solve, it's a client / feed diversity problem

i think the best thing merkle team did to address it is make v2 frames really awesome, so i'm continuing to work on the problem with @atlas in that design space

oh yes, you are right on all points — i mean "how, in the future, could farcaster encourage this"