nostr:nprofile1qqs8y6s7ycwvv36xwn5zsh3e2xemkyumaxnh85dv7jwus6xmscdpcygpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz8thwden5te0dehhxarj9ekh2arfdeuhwctvd3jhgtnrdakj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezucnpdejz7qxvpy4 and I were discussing with cashu dev nostr:nprofile1qqsqfyvdlsmvj0nakmxq6c8n0c2j9uwrddjd8a95ynzn9479jhlth3gpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsz9thwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjme0q9n8wumn8ghj7enfd36x2u3wdehhxarj9emkjmn99ah8qatzx9ck5emrd4k8q6m909krsmtyddm8qdrnxpuxcue5096xxatcxekhjd3sxe6xwenc89u8gar4wsunqdmgxpa8xdekd3nk5aelvfex7ctyvdshxapaw3e82egzmrk82 in riga the possibilities of zapping into a nutsack that's encumbered by a 2 of 3 multisig between the zapper, the dev / dev team and an oracle that can handle disputes. The zapper can even set a time limit where they can automatically claim back the funds if the feature isn't implemented. This is exciting stuff and would enable more meaningful amounts to be commited as bounties doe features. But at outset just having issues with a zap split that goes to the dev and a UX where zapping an issue is an indication to the devs that the feature is a higher priority for the zapper would be a win. What do you think?