Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
What should we do with egregious examples of squatted channels? I'm going to call this individual out since it's clearly squatting — @0xg — is sitting on a bunch of city channels and not actively building communities: /denver /la /losangeles /nyc /newyorkcity /newyork /sanfrancisco (Also the multiple variations of city names with no activity is clear squatting and when there are active communities in /los-angeles /sf /new-york.) A few other thoughts: 1. We have a no squatting policy for fnames and we allow ENS for a name that isn't governed by that policy. 2. We never advertised channels as something you buy and own forever. Has been centralized and experimental since we allowed anyone to create a channel last December. 3. I'm sympathetic to someone who is good faith trying to build a community, but that's not squatting. 4. Squatting is squishy, know it when you see, not deterministic. 5. Ultimately, squatters are massive negative externality on the network. It's parasitic, anti-social behavior.
38 replies
4 recasts
77 reactions
tyler ↑
@trh
Not sure I'd do it (expensive), but for discussion: full refund & reclaim. If you're unexpectedly taking something from someone, an above and beyond approach would be a sort of return to the previous state. This disallows any sort of "Merkle scammed me" argument. Pro-rated refund is a sort of penalty for squatting (a potential net benefit); full refund allows them to buy back the channel again if they so desire (which may be a massive negative effect, I admit). This all assumes good faith on their part, which isn't always the case, so there's that.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
It’s a yearly fee though. So why not pro-rate, esp. if most people on Farcaster are supportive?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
