Post #2107061
2026-05-06 20:56 UTC
@gabriel@mstdn.starnix.network
>fungible digital infrastructure
This is a really useful concept!
In my opinion, the infrastructure should be fungible, but not too fungible. On the one end of the spectrum, there is Fediverse, where each server is unique. This architecture helps communities grow and fosters decentralization, but moving between servers is difficult. On the other end, there are blockchains. Decentralized, but in practice they are just big databases where you dump your data. Nobody cares who the node operators are.
I'd like to build infrastructure that is fungible but not impersonal.
Replies (1)
-
@hpk@chaos.social 2026-05-06 21:20
@silverpill@mitra.social @gabriel@mstdn.starnix.network One possibility is to maybe move away from the individual ownership of servers, to some collective form that operates several things and supports others. The "identity" of that collective form does not need to be tied to a single server, but could be a broadcast channel which uses a variety of (even changing) relays. Many communities are anyway arranged around Telegram channels, and with delta and chatmail, that's not tied to any particular server.