Replying to Avatar Peter Todd

OpenSats is in part funded by the general public – donations are solicited from everyone, and accepted via BTC and fiat. That's one reason why grants are made public: it'd be absurd for OpenSats to be spending money without disclosing who is getting it.

But it's also absurd if the _rejected_ applications are entirely private too. Which is the status quo. Funders should have some idea of what they could have spent money on, and didn't.

All I did was reveal two rejected applications. If that is enough to constitue serious drama, you should rethink what you're doing...

nostr:nevent1qqswx60ffrdslpq2hnm3am2sraapnz9s0emkh482jdk205rf09yqhzspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsyg8g3f53axxenp7fv3fpmlmqqf0kquqr0zjg0yvqmjamffgz0pgyzypsgqqqqqqs3dny47

5b
5b459807... 1y ago

Absolutely! Not only that nut nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f should also publish their selection criteria. The phrase 'Feel free to apply again in the future' can feel like a bad joke if your projects have no real chance of being funded.

Take nostr:npub1v6qjdzkwgaydgxjvlnq7vsqxlwf4h0p4j7pt8ktprajd28r82tvs54nzyr and his Joinstr project, which combines privacy and decentralization, yet it didn’t receive a grant. Why? Is it because Bitcoin mixing is considered too controversial for the organization after the Samourai case?

'We have a minimum of 5 positive votes by the board for approval' sounds great but it says nothing about the reasoning behing those votes. It's like saying 'We've democratically decided to feed the cats but not the dogs', ok cool, but why?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.