Subnostr

And before anyone asks, the obvious solution to this is using Nostr to decide who gets a Nostr grant. You don't need backroom interviews and groveling supplicants to decide how to spend money to promote an open communications protocol.

Use the protocol.

People should just write up an explanation of their stuff in a long-form note and link to it from a Grant Application wiki table. And then we can all watch the process go down, read through the results and explanation of why each application was accepted or rejected, and add congratulatory zaps to the winners and condolence zaps to the losers.

And add a handicap score to the applications, to make it a fairer game.

The losers are automatically entered into the next round, unless they withdraw, and have a chance to better their application beforehand.

Laeserin 1y ago

I know I probably just pissed everyone off, but I'm wondering why we are asking developers who publish EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET, to pause developing and fill out forms and go through interviews and reviews.

Want to know what they're building? Read their docs and look at their repo.

Want to know what they've done since the last time you looked? Look again. Do a diff.

We want them building like their heels are on fire.

Everyone who wants a grant, raise your hand.

Okay, don't call us, we'll call you.

Keep building.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Laeserin 1y ago

WE ARE WATCHING THEM BUILD IN REAL TIME ON OUR FUCKING SCREENS

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

Worry not, Despota. All the deep state clowns will be left in the dust after someone makes a good web of trust implementation. Control over the protocol wil end up in the right hands by god's will 🙌

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

(Nobody's hands)

Laeserin 1y ago

1) Determine the measurable criteria for receiving a grant and create a checklist.

2) Publish that checklist on the wiki.

3) Publish any later changes to that checklist and announce them on Nostr.

4) Everyone who applied for a grant gets a copy of that checklist, filled out and published, as the output of the round of deliberations.

5) Everyone who gets a grant should have the amount of money granted written on this checklist.

Everyone who got a grant doesn't have to explain or justify, to anyone, why he got one.

Everyone who didn't, doesn't have to wonder why he didn't, and has a chance to adjust for the next round.

DanConwayDev 1y ago

Do you have some context here? My experience of the OpenSats application process was filling out a simple form pointing to the nostr work I had done and getting approved or rejected based on that.

Laeserin 1y ago

I'm going to write it all up in an article.

Laeserin 1y ago

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzphtxf40yq9jr82xdd8cqtts5szqyx5tcndvaukhsvfmduetr85ceqqyrxefk8yekyd3547d44s

gsovereignty 1y ago

As a developer who's also worked with literally thousands of developers over the last quarter of a century, I can say that this is insufficient.

There's more to it, for example character, vision, etc.