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?

    • demesisx@infosec.pubEnglish
      0·
      8 hours ago

      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.netEnglish
        0·
        8 hours ago

        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.pubEnglish
          0·
          6 hours ago

          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.netEnglish
            0·
            5 hours ago

            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).