Building @warpcast and @farcaster. Previously Coinbase, Brigade, Causes.

Dad, geek, conversation liquidity provider. vrypan.net (home), /weatherxm (work), @l--o--l (fun). Also https://paragraph.xyz/@purplesubmarine

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

An interesting Farcaster idea:  what if apps paid for storage, not users? 

- Apps buy a chunk of bytes.  
- Free to allocate to casts, reactions, follows in any way. 
- Free to assign to users in any way (fixed rate, free) 
- Lower cost by avoiding "unused storage" 

h/t to @vrypan.eth @deodad and @sds

Technowatermelon. Elder Millenial. Building Farcaster. 

nf.td/varun

This model feels wrong 

Farcaster users don’t necessarily have a relationship with a single app. What happens when the user decides to stop using the app that pays for their storage? Feels like there’s an incentive misalignment

cypherpunk wannabe, engineer working on @frames /open-frames /opencast
https://stephancill.co.za create stories at https://stories.steer.fun

Under the current architecture users always own their storage so it doesn’t matter which apps they use, they are in full control of their data

Under the new model the way I understand it the user would need to actively manage their storage broker and would be at risk of getting their data rugged at any time?

This has a similar UX trade off to federation without the benefit of less storage load on the network

Please correct me if any of the assumptions I’m making here are incorrect

you'd just migrate your data to another app. sort of like if you stopped paying your email or hosting provider. 

this problem exists in a similar form with signers today btw, and is solvable.