Are there plans to support more granular permissions for signers? 

Right now it feels like all or nothing. Would prefer to have scopes you can opt into:

- create cast
- delete cast
- react to cast
- update profile 

Also, would like the option to not delete casts when you revoke a signer.

𝓵𝓲𝓿𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓵𝓮𝓼𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓶𝓶𝓮𝓻 • building @buoy 🛟 • @dawnpatrol • pfista.com

I've avoided trying new apps because the signer is too permissive. I assume there's a dampening effect on non-wc signer growth because giving away full access requires high trust. 

Less trust required == more usage

Also, ep 6 of doing numbers they talk through how a signer "abused" its access

Building @warpcast and @farcaster, new dad, like making food

I've avoided trying new apps because the signer is too permissive. I assume there's a dampening effect on non-wc signer growth because giving away full access requires high trust. 

Less trust required == more usage

Also, ep 6 of doing numbers they talk through how a signer "abused" its access https://bit.ly/4b3dEuk

no concrete plans

is there something specific that prompted this?

re not deleting it’s fairly easy to address this at the application level by having the revoked signers messages resigned by a different signer

If you use Neynar apps, you can revoke access to specific apps at https://app.neynar.com/connections instead of revoking the Neynar signer.

This will revoke access to the specific app but not delete the associated messages.

Would you accept a semi-trusted party in the mix? We’re building access management tech; havent integrated FC actions but been thinking about it & wondering if people would want fine-grained auth on client keys