I think some territories are great. Some are unneeded, though.
I don't think are uneeded, there's not yet the right crowd for it!
reply
Even the ones that seem unnecessary can always change their name and focus. Nothing stops an owner from changing the name of a territory and its direction at any time.
reply
That is true. I feel many of the territories cover the same topics, or can just be expanded. Maybe it might be better to form a group and merge them? That way cost could go down for both?
reply
I've been wondering about whether we'll see territory mergers. I think they discussed that possibility at some point.
reply
Mergers or Co-owners. Will be an interesting future.
reply
I really hope they do co-ownership soon. That's what we would prefer to do with ~econ.
reply
you and who? Can I get in on the action? lol
reply
Me and the current owner, who doesn't have as much time to manage the territory as he would like. I don't know how he feels, but I'm all for having multiple owners and doing an equity sharing arrangement.
reply
I havent seen @jeff comment. Multiple owner territories would be cool.
71 sats \ 1 reply \ @jeff 4 Aug
Yah, @Undisciplined and I are on same page. I basically try to operate as if donors are co-owners now, but since its just bleeding money, there isnt actually that much to do/control othet than post cost, and I'm where the buck-stops, and also I don't want the liability of accidentally issuing a security, there is no commitment of sharing a claim to anything.