Thibauld on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

20 recasts

20 reactions

Thibauld pfp

A proposal to implement a dynamic rent approach to channels that would: * improve user experience * limit name squatting & extortion * increase app creators revenues Let me know what you guys think! https://slideframe.replit.app/QmNyAmhU3TsUJMfQfT8sAyHoYFvF7r4SALMwWN3hubc2WH

29 replies

22 recasts

248 reactions

Thibauld pfp

@dwr.eth , @v and team, that proposal is for you guys 👆 @simondlr, @vitalik.eth I would be interested what you think about this application of the harberger tax given that you've very likely witnessed more experiences around it than I did 🙏

1 reply

0 recast

12 reactions

Vitalik Buterin pfp

Vitalik Buterin

I feel like the challenge here is that channels are a public good to a greater extent than domain names. This approach works great for branded channels, where there is a single natural payer that gets a large portion of the benefit from the channel, but there's lots of other examples that don't work well.

1 reply

0 recast

5 reactions

Vitalik Buterin pfp

Vitalik Buterin

Eg. imagine someone making a channel for a particular country. This is a public good for people from that country. If you HT it, then you *increase* the chance it goes to the highest bidder, and it's much less clear that the natural highest bidder is a good actor. Even the government: they could abuse it to censor.

1 reply

0 recast

7 reactions

Vitalik Buterin pfp

Vitalik Buterin

Or eg. (scrolling through the list of channels I'm subscribed to) "history", "longevity", "network-states", "privacy" ... none have natural top bidders that are obviously aligned with being fair stewards of the channel.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Thibauld pfp

I get what you mean but it seems that I should have made more clear in my slides that the channel owner has to "opt-in" to the harberger tax system. It's NOT the default. By default, channel owners just pay their X warp / year and enjoy their channel. Nobody can take it from them (except the App creator).

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Thibauld pfp

Basically only channel names speculators would opt-in to the HT system because it's how they ensure that the App creator won't take their name away. TL;DR channel owner can: * Do nothing and avoid the HT system. Best choice for those who actually use the channel. * Use the HT system to speculate on the channel name.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Vitalik Buterin pfp

Vitalik Buterin

aaah I see. So channel owner has a 1-of-2 choice between "submit themselves to Governance™ (which could just be warpcast operators)" and "participate in the HT scheme" And I guess you can adjust the HT rate so that you get equal takeup of both. Interesting!

1 reply

1 recast

3 reactions

Thibauld pfp

Yes, exactly! 🙂

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Vitalik Buterin pfp

Vitalik Buterin

ok the more I think about this the more I like this. But I do think that the "submit to governance" option needs to involve some actual forced community input into what goes on, not just "the owner may decide to transfer it to someone else but realistically almost never does"

2 replies

0 recast

2 reactions