I am kind in helicopter mode rn ngl. Trust satoshi and anon fling over the walls.
Discussion
I'm eager to see proof that grant money is more effective.
effective at what though? grant money is easier to attract and to track but channels activities towards the desire of the grantors and leads back to centralized influence / authority. ON the other hand, no one wants to give money to a schmuck so you gotta watch them. projects are tricky. things happen. ppl change. These are the poles we find ourselves between.
The answer is gonna have to be net new revenue from outside the grant ecosystem. Charity wont do it. Love wont sustain it. need to think thunks about this in some organized way soon I think,
I mean, is it a more effective and/or efficient application of the same amount of funds?
If I have €200k sats and I want to give them to devs, is it better to give it to a board or to donate directly? We all assume the board has the most information, which is often the case in a particular case, but is it possible across all donors?
I suspect not. The board has one particular set of information, but not necessarily more than the entire group of donors. Each donor has a particular subset of information and can probably make educated guesses within that sphere, that would add up to more accuracy in aggregate.
Is central planning really more efficient?
I’d just make a list of all the devs, talk about your intention with them and get to know them (probably a full time jobs worth of time here but very fun) then fund the ones you get along with!
This is actually a solid strategy.
Basic Economics - Thomas Sowell attempts to answer that question
Centralization of resources is more efficient in every measurable way.
But measurable efficiency does not always produce “desired” results… esp when what’s “desired” is unknown.
“shooting from the hip” to solve problems in a fluid problem space … micro funding from distributed sources may be more effective.
I DO think this model of funding can scale to support for larger and longer duration projects. But this nut won’t be easy to crack, and people gotta want it.
Nostr has to want it.
Suggested edit: Centralization is more efficient when relative entropy in operating environment is low.
Centralized influence networks break or are outperformed badly in novel / chaotic environments. Use less energy per unit of measurable outcome though . . . theres that
Maybe. I think, i mean I could be nuts
Entropy itself is a measure of the “centralizing” force. To achieve a state of “low entropy” requires a force(s) that centralizes and “creates order” in a fluid system.
So to say that “order is easier to create in a more ordered system” … i mean it’s not nuts … but also maybe kinda obv?
And your second para is already what I said, just different words.
So no. I won’t edit. 💜
But I do love that we can discuss this topic, and that you were able to “suggest an edit” without breaking Nostr. LOL.
thats not what entropy is bro.
The second paragraph is not what you said. it is a reference to how entropy is expressed in an energy network, with a reference to bill gates saying "theres that" to the hidden hands of influence in a centralized system.
Oh yah. no edits on nostr either . . . that was the joke.