There are a lot of people around the world who cannot buy and sell from each other; either they are in different regulatory regimes, or they are completely unbanked. There's also a lot of concentration of wealth to publishing houses - who aggregate the work of many artists and then simplify billing. Because money is so hard to deal with it tends to make it hard for artists to have creative sovereignty. They're always beholden to somebody else. We all suffer for this.

Effectively money is a form of communication; and when Mozilla bows to social pressure and social anti-crypto hysteria - they're continuing what they've always done - which is focus on insulating users, protecting users from risks, while also failing to foster a healthy ecosystem. Why do we have an arms race between people who want to violate privacy and people who want privacy? Why do we have so much sound bite media, with hugely emotional banner headlines and warped narratives? Why are the walled gardens so much more successful than the web (in the sense of much of the creative work and creative community moving to native apps?). We have these phenomena because there is no legitimate way for people to have direct transactional and healthy relationships on the web with respect to money. Mozilla is not "helping the web" they are hurting the web. Their fixation on the wrong things injures the ecosystem. They shouldn't waste their time begging for crypto, but what they should do is enable people to pay each other.