If the channels as public group chats experiment goes decently well, I’d like to recommend an adjustment to the name space issue of the current implementation. If it’s all about the community someone builds, then minimize the name squatting and first mover advantage. My 2 cents.

I like to solve problems and build things. Product, crypto, web3, NFTs, AI... Opinions my own. ✊🏾 • he/him • #DΞF
https://paragraph.xyz/@saadiq

I'm eth newbie..just learning
(working on @farcaster)

terminally.online

Not specifically. Generally, just thinking that if channels aren't public resources then it's not the group name or subject so much that I care about but the people. So a number of "ai" chats, for example, where I can browse the content, members and traffic characteristics to see what I want to participate in might be a better experience than the list of channels with later channels seeming off brand because they didn't squat on a name early.

Do you have a specific idea? I agree that more than one namespace might be an interesting direction.