Subnostr

So far, the only competition is direct zaps, subscriptions, and crowdfunding (over Geyser Fund, for example).

Right, all of which is indirectly competing. OpenSats has an organic advantage over these options by way of organized distribution.

I think that advantage is something to be celebrated. We rely on many centralized aspects to keep the Nostr thriving.

I am not sure what level of transparency should be demanded of OpenSats. I would perhaps argue claims of transparency, being that is an alleged goal of their own, but I am not here to speak negatively of them, or be too critical.

What I would like to see from OS specifically, is more attention given to rejected applications. I have seen people approved and denied in my time here, and I think there could be more follow-up with projects that weren't accepted.

Where is the spotlight for those who didn't quite make it, yet? How can OpenSats encourage them to keep trying? I think the lack of options keeps people from applying more than anything. The alternative options are a lot more work than applying to OS, but they have varying success rates with direct fulfillment, whereas OpenSats just says "sorry, you weren't selected." I think that can be demoralizing for many, and it should be addressed.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Laeserin 1y ago

Yes.

The other options are also more politically neutral.

Many Nostriches have had frequent prior interactions (or run-ins) with the people dispersing the OpenSats budget. So long as the process is intransparent or unclear, they will worry about accusations of favoritism or a lack of impartiality of the evaluators.

Whereas, if you simply ask for donations or subscriptions, then the other person is spending their own money and it's their own business.

That might help explain why some of the most visible, productive and engaged devs have effectively recused themselves from applying for grants, whereas many relative unknowns apply. This is leading to an increasing bifurcation between the quality and amount of work being done and the grants being spent.

Tekkadan, ゲロゲロ! 🐸 1y ago

After considering your points and other comments in this thread- I have to wonder, could OpenSats transition to funding other OpenSats startups? To my knowledge there is little governance of the actual exercise of the funding. They merely ensure you are still committed to your goals on a quarterly basis, right?

They should kick up funding toward new OpenSats initiatives to encourage a microcosm of new grant-based initiatives.

Could OpenSats receivers also have the option to multiply their funding, under the condition that half will become funding toward their own future grant distribution?

I would love nothing more than to see the most successful builders on Nostr also be granted the ability to clone OpenSats and secure a relative portion of funding to distribute to their own applicants.

I think this would encourage a lot more diverse builders to apply under association of parent grantees.

Like a network of grant-giving. I support OpenSats in having a careful, thorough review process. I think their process should extend to their developers- specifically those who wish to carry that torch.