Replying to Avatar Moss

I was shocked. #[0] #[1] #[2] #[3] #[4]

After waiting for a long few months for #[5] 's application for #[6] funding, I received an email from opensats rejecting Freerse's application for development funding.

I didn't expect Freerse would not be funded by opensats. I really want to build a simple and easy-to-use Bitcoin social payment client for Nostr. It is also liked by many Nostr users. I spent 1 and a half years building Freerse and sold my own Bitcoin. Why are so many clients that no one uses or even hears of getting funded? And Freerse can't get funding. There are also some people who participated in Nostr construction for a short time and left after getting funding, while people like us who have been building for Nostr can't get funding. I want to know the reason for not being funded? How can I improve it?

The reply received was:

“The Board noted that there has been very little Github activity on the project, including zero activity in the past few months. Please feel free to reapply in the future if you are actively working on the project.

Building up a substantial amount of proof of work is important for applications.”

I was shocked again.

Before applying for opensats, we had built Freerse for a year and a half. It was my first time to build an open source project. It was only because opensats required open source that we put the Freerse code on GitHub. When applying for opensats funding, my own funds had run out. I built Freerse, but I was just a product designer, not a programmer. I had no way to pay the programmer's salary. During the months of waiting for opensats funding, I could only pay for the maintenance of the server and the usual bug fixes. I have been waiting for the funding review of opensats to get the funds to continue building Freerse. I need to earn money to support myself in these months. After waiting for a few months. What I got was the board's disregard for the work we spent more than a year and money to build Freerse. Ignoring the love of Nostr users for Freerse. Ignoring our efforts to keep the Zap function of Nostr's posts on iOS, and fighting with Apple for two months through the App Store regulations in exchange for the Nostr iOS client being able to keep the Zap function of posts.

Ironically. The OpenSats board said that they want to see the updates to our github as proof of work for the past few months we have been waiting to apply for funding. Isn't our already built client our proof of work? Does the board only look at the surface? Haven't the board members used our client? Can't we apply for OpenSats funding for our already completed client?

Freerse's now completed client function is our proof of work. Freerse is fully qualified to receive funding from OpenSats. Please consider it carefully. We want to continue building for Nostr and create a simple and easy-to-use Bitcoin social payment client. Please fund us and we will continue to build.

https://freerse.com

It sounds like what we need is GitHub activity simulator that creates innocuous changes and backdates them, so the chart fills with green squares.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Totally agree.

The Opensats board wanted a nice spreadsheet. Not a client that Nostr users would like to use. So a lot of clients that nobody uses and hasn't even heard of are getting funded. They're not exchanging bitcoin value for value. They're just using bitcoin to fund a lot of nice spreadsheets on GitHub.

#[4], they're turning your bitcoin donations into scrap paper.

Value is always subjective. The open sats board have proclaimed that they value changes to GitHub repos. Therefore it is reasonable to give them green squares.

Once they get a flood of synthetic green squares, they might change their metric. Lines of code? Issues closed? Releases pushed? Whatever they want we can create in arbitrary quantity.

Measuring green squares is a convenience. But once it becomes a target, it creases to be a good measurement.

I’m pretty sure the board is made up for volunteers who independently evaluate a project. It’s not like they gather in a room and make decisions together. It’s a bit unfair to say “the board wanted” when it’s just people who look at things on their own time.

The work of #[4] volunteers is great. I'm not sure if #[5] donated special operating funds to provide salaries to volunteers. But they can't make decisions based on a piece of statistical waste paper just because they are volunteers. They have a great responsibility. They are responsible for the allocation of funding for the entire decentralized Nostr global developers. This is the value of Jack's establishment of Opensats.

I saw some early Nostr developers who have been quietly developing infrastructure to contribute to Nostr. But many of them were rejected when they applied for funding. There was no reason. We all came here because we believed in Jack. I once asked Jack if he would still support Nostr if Nostr could not develop within 5 years? Jack said "Yes". So we have been working hard to make good products. We all believe that the combination of Nostr and Bitcoin is the future. But now the proof of work of our builders has been defeated by a beautiful piece of waste paper. And refused funding.

Isn't this ridiculous? Since Opensats has discovered the problem, it should face the solution. Instead of whitewashing it. If Opensats is short of staff, it should raise more operating funds to recruit volunteers. It can't be said that a few volunteers can manage tens of millions of dollars for free. This is not in line with business rules, and money should not be used to test human nature. Funding applications now take several months, which seriously affects Nostr's development. If this continues, many real developers will leave. In the end, only some GitHub projects that can make statistical tables but no one uses them will be left.

Not sure why a GitHub repo would be considered statistical waste paper… if I were screening hundreds of applications without deep knowledge of what each one is about, a code repository would be a good indicator of activity or inactivity on a project. Maybe not the only heuristic to measure by but certainly not something to disregard.

Agreed. But now it's the only thing that matters. If the developer client hasn't even been tested, a GitHub statistics table will negate the proof of work. For projects that have no users, they can make a lot of special green tables.

nostr:note1cdnpqm290nqmzmercv0yjpd2fy89kxe6v70s4wp6nuatcfjwel6s8hv3fx

"volunteers"

that's a shitcoiner move 😂

It’s like those jiggler things remote office workers use to keep laptops on to justify their enormous salaries while paying someone on Fiverr to do their job so they can fuck off all day.

Exactly. If the company wants mouse jiggling, who are we to judge them?

People have different preferences. Variety is the spice of life. Some people like to pay mouse jigglers. There’s no accounting for taste.

This is a fact

It’s what they want! Mutual exchange is the basis of capitalism.

Who am I to judge their love of green squares?

I highly doubt they want you to make fake green squares 😂

Why all this kink-shaming the green square lovers? They showed a screenshot of a dearth of green squares. Give the people what they crave!

Truth

The truth is, it's not about exchanging value for value. It's about exchanging bitcoin for shitcoin.