Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Hoot 🎩 pfp
Hoot 🎩
@owl
Remember when channel registry was supposed to move onchain? Pepperidge farm remembers
1 reply
1 recast
4 reactions

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Feel good work. If the feature is not growing, then doing the work to decentralize it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Dogmatic adherence to decentralizing things that aren't working is a death knell for a pre-product market fit protoocl.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Hoot 🎩 pfp
Hoot 🎩
@owl
Appreciate the pragmatic approach but imho channels as a primitive (without the moderation changes we’ve seen over the months) have been validated enough now to be prioritized and moved to protocol level. Would enable more interoperability without the centralized aspect that is Warpcast. See supercast and other clients, most of them implement channels as a core feature
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
> have been validated enough now to be prioritized and moved to protocol level Define validated enough? If they aren't growing, that means they aren't working in the current form. Other than channel creation, everything else is available via API.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Samuel ツ pfp
Samuel ツ
@samuellhuber.eth
there are plenty of APIs for it
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction