• Deebster ( Deebster@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 years ago

    I don’t think we need that at all. Each instance can look after its own hosting and funding.

    A centralised pot is asking for trouble - what about theft or corruption? What happens about disagreements like defederation? Seems a lot more trouble than it’s worth.

    • Snapz ( Snapz@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      I hear you, but with funding you want to remove barriers when someone has that moment of generosity. I deliberately said it was counter and not an easy solve by any means, but if I decide to donate, then start to think…

      • which instance?
      • do I think they have longevity?
      • do I support more than one?
      • If yes to above, what’s the split?
      • had I looked into people’s ethics enough to donate money to them
      • etc., etc.

      All that is a great way for me to say, “I’ll get to this later when I have time” and ultimately not donate at all - even if I had the initial impulse to do so.

      Versus, this is the pot, it’s vetted, or had a transparent structure and communal management and a plan to distribute based on need.

      If we’re serious about this place maintaining at scale (or better, collection of places) it’s a hard problem we might want to invest time in.