THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
WE HAVE HAD OVER 1000 APPLICATIONS. THAT MEANS OVER 800 REJECTIONS.
WE ARE ONE OF THE MOST TRANSPARENT AND EFFICIENT NON PROFITS IN THE WORLD.
WE DO NEED TO GET BETTER AT COMMS/FEEDBACK. IT IS A PRIORITY.
Discussion
“The most transparent”, says OpenSats, which does not disclose 33% (or more) of the board has economic ties to VC funds and companies with interests against Bitcoin
or their grant selection process
💯
> WE HAVE HAD OVER 1000 APPLICATIONS. THAT MEANS OVER 800 REJECTIONS.
This implies you accepted 200 applications? Where is WalletScrutiny? Did you get that application? Do you count it as rejected? If so, could I have a rejection message, please?
> WE ARE ONE OF THE MOST TRANSPARENT AND EFFICIENT NON PROFITS IN THE WORLD.
Nah, I don't think so. That reminds me how out of the thousands of wallets I personally reviewed, most marketing claims include some variation of "best wallet". It's so universally present that it doesn't even serve as a red flag, although the best wallets tend to use that phrase less than the shadier ones.
> WE DO NEED TO GET BETTER AT COMMS/FEEDBACK. IT IS A PRIORITY.
Since when is it a priority, cause I'm trying to get feedback since months for an application I sent many months ago.
WE SENT YOU A REJECTION EMAIL ON OCT 17.
I’m always a fan of knowing how much someone is funded. For the accountability of the grantee + helps people understand the priorities of the org from a fiscal scene. MacArthur does it, Fords database is updated routinely, and jacks start small has it too. All that said, I’ve never seen so many grown men whine openly grant declinations here/feel entitled to have a grant in my life.
OpenSats distributes ~$1M monthly in Bitcoin/nostr funding while seeking more donations, yet lacks transparency in their grant decisions. Their board includes a non-FOSS hardware wallet producer, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest in funding decisions, particularly for Free and Open Source hardware wallet projects. While nostr:npub17tyke9lkgxd98ruyeul6wt3pj3s9uxzgp9hxu5tsenjmweue6sqq4y3mgl (who can be seen as a ColdCard competitor) received support, the total amount relative to overall distributions remains unclear. While "Free and Open Source" is a requirement for OpenSats grants, multiple board members are known to block people who question their compliance with OSI standards of FOSS. The community deserves to know: How are votes handled when board members have industry ties? What prevents personal dynamics from affecting grant decisions for important FOSS projects like WalletScrutiny?