I absolutely believe the Fediverse needs to remain a space built on transparency, autonomy, and equity for users, instance admins, and developers working on ActivityPub. Look at the current state of social media, power and money concentrated in the hands of a few, stifling innovation and undermining trust. The centralized model isn’t just flawed, I think it’s had a devastating impact on an entire generation.

The Fediverse offers us a chance to rethink how the internet should work. It’s not just about being a space for free expression; it’s also about proving that a values-driven model can support those who keep the lights on. My main question is, can we implement monetization that honors our commitment to fairness, transparency, and equity, while still ensuring that the people supporting the network earn a livable wage?

This isn’t about getting rich, it’s about creating a sustainable ecosystem that empowers us all to build and maintain a trustworthy digital space. The Fediverse is already a success in its own right, but to truly evolve and thrive, I would argue we need a resource model that can drive sustainable innovation and meaningful progress.

TL;DR: I’d quit my day job tomorrow if I could secure a living wage from this work. Many in tech whold do the same. Is a monetization model that fairly compensates those who support and sustain the Fediverse possible?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (17 children)

Yeah! How dare people try to have wealth that is actually borderless and self-sovereign. Those idiots are scammers! I will own nothing and be happy. Get out of my way, I need to step in line to bow before the Federal reserve (an organization that I fully admit is corrupt to the core and the very root of the issues in our society). I'm actually a Marxist living in a capitalist society. So, I am too cool to worry about the fact that I actually need money. I'll just pretend that I don't need it even though I REALLY do. I'll do whatever I can to piss on viable alternatives to the Fed just because people were degenerate gamblers and got owned by obvious scammers. Sure the fed can take away my money for no reason, inflate the dollar so that my savings are worth less every single day, and do whatever they feel like with my money but that is a good thing because scammers exist in the world....

sarcasm

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world -1 points 23 hours ago (16 children)

Nice rant. A very provincial take I must I add.

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 9 points 23 hours ago (15 children)

Thanks. 😂 Honestly, I hate scammers. I really do. But they're SO easy to spot.

I feel that the hivemind threw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to crypto. Thanks to Do Kwan, Sam Bankman Fried, etc, a whole viable set of technologies aimed at wrestling power from the world bank has been vilified by the hivemind.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Nono, it is not all just a scam. It is just {insert list of pretty much all relevant actors} that are scammers, the idea itself is totally legit! /s

Futher reading: https://drewdevault.com/2021/04/26/Cryptocurrency-is-a-disaster.html

You are an easy target if you think the scammers are easy to spot 😅

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Scammers:

don’t tend to share any of their their source code
usually have an initial token allocation where insiders are given early access to more than 15% of tokens. (this one is a CRUCIAL)..Obviously, the best ITA is one where the tokens are 100% available to everyone at once.
heavily market their cryptocurrency before it even has a use-case (most projects fall into this category)
their governance is centralized to some charismatic Elon-bro that talks about price all the time
don’t let you use any wallet you want (self-sovereignty is CRUCIAL)
don’t give you access to your keys at all times (again, self-sovereignty)
are usually just some governance token or ERC-20 or some quickly minted Solana token ($LIBRA $TRUMP $MELANIA were all obvious scams)
never have a viable peer-reviewed white paper
their code is NEVER formally verified by neutral parties
use technologies that are not auditable
use technologies that are not decentralized

I’ve spotted many scammers a mile away just starting with this list off the top of my head.

For instance, I am the moderator of infosec.pub/c/midnight and actually locked my own communities until I see the source code.

I like the tech from what they tell me. But, I can’t, in good conscience recommend it yet because it ticks some of the above scammer boxes.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Yet you fail to see the forest for the trees...

A system that makes it so trivial to scam people, is a system made for (and likely by) scammers, even if it has other good ideas as well.

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

I suspect you should listen to your own counterpoint:

Don’t walk down the street because someone might rob you.

Don’t use your computer because someone could hack you.

Don’t go swimming because it is possible to drown.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

An uncensorable ledger not controlled by any one party is (at the very least) a valuable technology with unique abilities despite scammers using it for gambling.

The digital equivalent of uniqueness is (at the very least) a valuable technology with unique abilities despite assholes using it for Bored Apes.

Just because you can’t see the use case, doesn’t mean we need to stop innovating.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

That completely misses the point I was trying to make you understand. But I guess you are a bit too deep in the bezzle to understand it (yet).

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Are there obvious, inherent pitfalls to deregulation of anything at all? Yes.

Is it absolutely necessary for it to exist? Also yes. Self sovereignty is both dangerous and absolutely necessary…unless you WANT Uncle Sam to be able to put a short time-limit on spending your tax return once they adopt a Central Bank Digital Currency (and they will). With a CBDC controlled by the Fed, we will be subject to money that expires and other features that feel like bugs that go hand in hand with a central power controlling a currency.

Agree to disagree then. You don’t seem to grasp my points and I don’t grasp yours. Peace.

As my rant above detailed, I’d be happy to give up my belongings if I lived in a truly communist society. But I don’t. So, I hold onto my possessions tightly since it is literally the way I survive.

load more comments (13 replies)