I’m agreeing with the sentiment, but a fully private CBDC is not a CBDC anymore, the whole point of CBDC is to have control, which you’ll lose with a fully private coin. The problem is not the technology, but governments around the world will not accept it, especially as a large-scale way of transferring value. It seems in the end reserve currencies are always abused, creating one that is uncontrolable and unabusable seems like a great thought experiment, but we’re very far from that, and no one will cede monetary control, even if, in theory, that will help everyone. If a government or even the world wants to create a digital private cash system, I’m fully onboard with that. It will simplify things a lot. And if governments believe that will produce a lot of tax evasion, the simplest system is just to tax assets, which can’t be hidden. For me, it makes much more sense to tax assets and wealth, as it is much simpler than taxing income, which, if it is not used, is just a number with no effect.
- 0 replies
- 0 recasts
- 1 reaction
It doesn’t set any precedent, because it was a settlement. Only rulings are supposed to set precedents. As you say, in fact, the judge said that training on copyrighted material is fair use, but objected to illegally downloading books from piracy websites. Anthropic just abandoned the legal fight and calculated that paying 3k per book to 500k authors is easier and better PR. Meta did the same actions, but is still fighting their case. The last legal claim they made is that even if you acquire copyrighted material using torrents, it’s not illegal if you don’t seed. To be honest, I don’t want copyright holders to win any case because my thesis is that IP protections are hurting society, and more people would benefit if IP protections were thoroughly reduced, for example, to a maximum of 1-2 years. There are ample studies that indicate IP only facilitates wealth concentration. But if Meta is allowed to pirate, so should everyone else.
- 0 replies
- 0 recasts
- 2 reactions
You did hit the contentious point, the MM team promised something that it can't do. I just wish they dropped the decentralized label because, in my opinion, it's false advertising. After 5 years, there’s practically only one team under one company that shapes the protocol, and every decision. This reality does not meet the standard of decentralization for many ppl, the fact that Snapchain is open-source does not change the fact that MM practically has almost full control over everything. What’s the timeline for control not to rest with a single organization? 20 years... or maybe even never... I agree with people who say many users don’t care about decentralization, and MM team said that many, many times, so by their own logic, the label does not have much marketing value, and probably is best for everyone to be dropped, because I have seen this saga of users crying that Farcaster is centralized and dwr disagreeng that it’s becoming one of the main theme of Farcaster.
- 0 replies
- 0 recasts
- 2 reactions