Farcaster

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!

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

Technowatermelon. Elder Millenial. Building Farcaster. 

nf.td/varun

Writer, artist, coder, musician. Casts ideas, storytelling, blockchains, systems, art, cities. ❤️ sunsets. he/him.

Subscribe -> https://sceneswithsimon.com

co-founder at fairmint.com.
If you're a FF (Farcaster Founder) raising funds, stop right here and checkout fairmint.com. Or DC me :)

@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 🙏

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.

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.

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.