WE SENT YOU A REJECTION EMAIL ON OCT 17.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

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?

tldr, b