If I were in their position, I would have trained for this scenario, and already prepared a way to put entire subreddits into 'read only' mode which just replays history - ie. show funny cat pictures from last year. Then any subreddit that starts talking too much about leaving for a new platform gets put in read only mode. Let people think they are still interacting - ie. people can still upvote/downvote/comment, but it's mostly/all dummy stuff.
But... I bet they haven't prepared, and will be caught off guard.
There is never a shortage of losers desperate for a crumb of power.
If the former is true, the moderators aren't really "replaceable" in that way. You can fire them, but the output of your product will suffer as a result. In that interpretation the moderators are actually some of the most important customers of Reddit - they produce quality content in return for free hosting and occasional assistance.
If the latter is true then you can just fire them and it doesn't matter...but it kind of seems like no one believes that? If Reddit really thought they could fire them they probably would have just done it? I don't know what the truth is but I think the former interpretation dominates thinking.
Sure - the cost would be higher, but is that cost actually higher than allowing insurgent moderators to retain control over very prominent subreddits and, presumably, shut them down? Doubtful. There’s no way Reddit would allow moderators to “take down” Reddit.