Varun Srinivasan
@v
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
24 replies
36 recasts
120 reactions
Stephan
@stephancill
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
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Varun Srinivasan
@v
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.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Stephan
@stephancill
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
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Varun Srinivasan
@v
That risks exists today. If you give Warpcast or Supercast a signer and they're posting on your behalf they can delete your data at any time.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Stephan
@stephancill
That’s not the case with all apps - and I think we should have much higher standards for how farcaster apps store/access signers - but that is a debate for another day But I take your point. I do like the idea of storage blocks that can be shared between multiple FIDs - doesn't necessarily need to be linked to apps. I could buy a storage block for my channel or for my friends
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
