I was thinking about Bitcoin investing in relation to our nostr:npub1s3ht77dq4zqnya8vjun5jp3p44pr794ru36d0ltxu65chljw8xjqd975wz project.
Most Nostr development is quick-n-dirty development, because the users are extremely impatient and the funds generally don't flow until you have something tangible to show an audience. We decided to go more slow-n-steady, but that means my outlays at the beginning and during development won't be recuperated until the first full release. Which could take a year or longer. If Bitcoin goes parabolic between here and then, I'm sorta screwed.
So, I decided to write for sats, using the knowledge I'm gaining as member of GitCitadel and generally increasing the quality of my writing, to recoup my outlays over a different channel, parallel to the development.
I think this is an "until now" unforseen side-effect of a deflationary currency, and that explains why so much Bitcoin or Nostr-related development is funded by grants (no money returned), rather than investment (at least part of the money might be returned).
I think the best way to mitigate that time-lapse effect is this sort of multi-pronged building.
1) Building in stages, to generate returns earlier on.
2) Generating returns through some parallel or periodic activity.
I believe it’s mostly grants because the everyone believes the outcome of the work is still ‘pre-commercial’ and more in the ‘public interest’. That is to say, no one yet knows what the business models will be to drive the return on investment. Still unknown if nostr is a fad/novelty or a key building block of the future.
The grants (including VC funding, which might eventually disappear under a Bitcoin Standard) are used to fund the "big jump" versions, where they move quickly from an idea or simple PoC to a completely revamped and fleshed-out version. Then they are weaned off of the grants or the grants are reduced, and they attempt to quickly match the missing funds with fees, to cover running costs.
There is currently no universally-viable concept for fully returning the costs Big Jumps incurr.
Then there is the question of open source. Most grants require the work to be open source at the outset.Perfectly fine, but negating the possibility of an initial commercial advantage. Many are perfectly happy to give everything away for a few zaps, but others want to invest first for an advantage before giving away.
This will not be feasible, soon, as reverse-engineering automation will make everything de facto open-source. We just have to adjust to FOSS.
