Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Looking for feedback on this iteration for channels The single biggest remaining complaint is people feeling like the pre-existing, large, topic based channels like /food or /founders should be more accesible. It will also reduce work for channel mods who don't want to have to approve every single person who wants to cast in their channel, but are OK giving up some control of who (and they can always invite someone to be a member to guarantee it). Curious: 1. Would you turn this on or off for your channel? 2. Any concerns? https://warpcast.notion.site/Public-mode-11f6a6c0c10180869699c725fa9e02e3
45 replies
211 recasts
939 reactions
Kieran Daniels 🎩
@kdaniels.eth
As much as this was my issue; live by the sword die by the sword. I’d rather it be the way it is and decentralized and let the market work it out. As for consumers and overall enjoyment of the platform for a lot of people, I think it would be good because people thought of them that way even though maybe they shouldn’t have. Forced still feels against ethos. But if anyone wants to opt in to make it a “public good” that could be great.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Say more against the ethos? Decentralized ownership of communities feels very Farcaster?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Kieran Daniels 🎩
@kdaniels.eth
I meant like if you were to forcibly take those channels from the people who got them first, that would be against the ethos of decentralization. I said that in a confusing way I think.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Kieran Daniels 🎩
@kdaniels.eth
But like my opinion on squatters (undeniable ones) is that that where “sufficiently decentralized” is the reason Warpcast is working. If you don’t take those names then the core experience is wounded, I think in those cases centralization is the key to scaling.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Got it. They were never decentralized. Premature decentralization leads to crazy deadweight.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
