More sats flowing is a good thing, but enforcing a minimum donation is asinine and counterproductive. People give what they can, when they want. Someone who'd zap you 10 sats regularly might give you nothing if there's a minimum. Don't be a dumbass, Damus. Read the room.
Discussion
I totally agree with you but I think the larger issue is coming down to trying to find a path to profitability with freedom tech. That’s the larger issue, which is yet to be addressed
And I'll raise you this: if we don't get more users and engagement here, the OpenSats grants are going to dry up.
We do need more people to onboard. But it first must be useful enough that people want to be on boarded. I like the idea of automating funding using zaps. Hell, add all the options one wants for zaps. Minimums should be set by user choice. Personally, I won't turn away a sat and wouldn't enforce a minimum. I wouldn't want my client to by force either.
There is definitely a risk of that happening as well, especially when you don’t have projects that eventually get weaned off of the grants. The grants ought to provide enough oxygen to gain traction such that the project can be self sustaining (which still comes back to users and engagement), with a few exceptions, the grants shouldn’t be perpetual.
Fax.
What happened?
Nothing yet. But have a look at the discussion and you'll see the idea that's on the table.
It is for filter anti spam , storage and make sure every user have a good experienced while maintaining their privacy ..probably nothing .
People free to zap or not , is voluntarally .
...yeah, we wouldn't be able to maintain these roads otherwise 🛣
when things are enforced in terms of donations, it degrades its meaning. imagine your charity would come to you and say, hey you can only donate a minimum of £50 🤣