The Gemini.com article looks like AI slop to me, honestly.
In lieu of traditional client-server architecture, Radicle Link uses a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) as the core of its P2P network, a distributed ledger technology similar to blockchain that excels in speed and scalability.
DAGs are a distributed ledger? Wat?
Also if you actually looked at the code of radicle, you wouldn't find rad tokens, erc-20, or whatever else. If you further looked at the protocols you'd see that they aren't using a blockchain. Repository ownership is not handled by smart contracts either - it's all public key cryptography, which (again) is not crypto in the sense you're talking about.
To be fair, the article is old and describing radicle version 2. You can find the code here, but I can't find ERC tokens or anything like that in there, which further makes me think the authors of the article are very confused, AI, or misrepresenting the project on purpose. Of course, it's possible that all references to crypto were removed from the archive, but it would be good to provide a link to that if you found it.
$RAD is the native token of the Radworks Network, used as the primary means to coordinate all actors, govern the treasury, and (later this year will) reward infrastructure providers on top of the Radicle network.
This I didn't know of. But I'm curious how that will be done. It is not proof of crypto being within the radicle protocol or codebase (because it isn't, I looked - maybe I missed it, but I'd like proof thereof). It might be put in there in the future but I'm pretty sure they know it would piss off people to do that.
My guess is that theyll do it like IPFS, which I don't think has crypto with the protocol but has filecoin on top to reward people who pin things in IPFS. But IPFS users can completely ignore filecoin and aren't required to use it.
I would like to remind you that you are arguing for a monopolist. I'd agree with you if it were for a startup or mid-sized company that had lots of competition and was providing a good product being abused by competitors or users. But Github has a quasi-monopoly, is owned by a monopolist that is part of the reason other websites are being bombarded by requests (aka, they are part of the problem), and you are sitting here arguing that more people should join the monopoly because of an issue they created.
Can you see the flaws in reasoning in your statements?
Anti Commercial-AI license