Idea name: Organization channels Description: A list of channels that can be discovered through a link/invite, can be private (invite only), read only for the public. Similar to discord servers.
A user would click on a link, and it would import a list of channels. This channels are curated by a single entity and can be read-only for non-members and read-write for members, or kept private for non-members. This would address partially the spam issue.
Use case: *As an organization, I want to have a list of channels that I manage So that I can use status as a slack/discord replacement Target user: Organizations Why this is important:
Spam, discovery of channels. Any other comments:
This is essentially the same as discord/slack feature.
Interesting! it’s something I’ve been pondering the last week or so, maybe from a different angle of how to accommodate communities on Status, which essentially are a list of curated chats with membership and moderation, private or public somewhere along the lines of what you’re suggesting. Figma
I was thinking about this for a while, this is what I have expermientally specified, but I was calling it “namespaces” as internal name, but communities is a better name.
- namespaces: rooms are separeted by namespaces
- namespace root room: the "default room"/"welcome" room, have no name,
- namespace rules
- public namespaces: anyone can participate in any room
- token namespace: namespaces can be based on a specific token (when no token is specified, SNT is used)
- private namespaces: a controlled namespace which rules are decided by a person/group
It mentions about SNT being used, this is for another concept I have in mind, which is visibility fee and governance of rooms (mtods, image of room, etc)
In regards of “DApp chats”, the chat room linked to the DApp opened in browser, it should also be able to be configured by the DApp “status API”, and there they could define a public community.
This is a great idea. What I especially like about it is that it is scratching our own itch. By doing so, we are much more likely to solve problems for people and organizations like us, as opposed to thinking about some abstract “user”. More stuff like this please
Discord users are already familiar with the concept of staking in community through server boosting.
Theoretically, allowing members of a community to stake money in that community would be similar to discord server boosting. You contribute money to the community pool that can then be spent on extra functionality provided by Status Nodes.
That’s a great Idea, If we also implemented Encrypted Audio and Video Calls maybe adding more stake could increase bandwidth limits for higher quality streams.
Interesting! it’s something I’ve been pondering the last week or so, maybe from a different angle of how to accommodate communities on Status, which essentially are a 
