That’s whom cryptocurrency confidence games is currently serving, though. It vacuums off bad investors far more than bad markets ever could have, and leaves society to deal with the mess. Stablecoins is just another way to pass off the sort of bad debt that has led to bank rescues of the past and the fall of Lehman Brothers. You say you are tying it to currency, and then begin tying it off to bad debt obligations.
At the very least, social networks like this really need a two server type system: the authenticator who identifies that you are really who you say you are and handles personal settings, communication, and access to the fediverse, and the content provider that hosts the communities.
It is intelligent and deductive, but it is not cognitive or even dependable.
Then, a few years from now they will continue to ask why they need to continue to import their scientists from other countries.
The Spanish roulette is not having a siesta.
So basically, they are mooching off of free healthcare - by performing by one of the most risk free activities that is almost going to guarantee they won’t need healthcare in the first place?
MAGA tactic:
Take negative stereotype, say it is preventing a desirable goal from being reached, then say it is because of what you are actually trying to cut. Doesn’t matter if they barely have any real relation to each other.
What do you mean? The authenticator instance could ban users, the moderators and the content provider instances could ban users, content provider instances could defederate from authenticator instances and viceversa.
Not sure I’m seeing the issue you are seeing, it’s just basically forcing lemmy instances to instead of being both to just be one or the other. The benefit is that the actions on one is free from the drama on the other. One would be dedicated to hosting users, the other would be dedicated to hosting communities, less burnout overall.