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

Interesting!

- How does pruning work in this model? Per app or per user?
- Can a user easily move their data between apps? (yes, resigning and resubmitting, but are there any other limits they may hit in this case such as throttling?)
- How could the ordering architecture be affected by this change? What if apps did not buy storage, but tipped sequencers? Many models, not auctions necessarily. For example a flat fee, but pick the sequencer.

This is why #2 is important.

So, the app I've been using until now shuts down. I have no way to pay them. All the casts signed by them will start expiring? How can I save my old casts?

a thought on question 1 is move pruning to be an app level concern

hubs don't prune but return an error if you try to submit w/o storage

this works in global ordering and apps should be able to provide a good UX to users

ex: app could offer a free version that provides 7 days of storage along with a paid version that provides indefinite storage