Thank you, nostr:npub1rzg96zjavgatsx5ch2vvtq4atatly5rvdwqgjp0utxw45zeznvyqfdkxve
nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f 's reason for rejecting Freerse's funding application is truly unbelievable.
They claim to fund "open-source projects," but their reason for rejecting us wasn't that Freerse isn't open-source, but rather—that we didn't have those "little green dots" on our GitHub.
Their only publicly stated requirement was "must be open-source," but their actual evaluation criterion was the activity record on GitHub.
For a year and a half before applying, we had been developing locally and publicly releasing all progress and version updates on Nostr nostr:npub1tqjvq0ff6detxfmuczmvkvk52sgs9fa0ppjmmgu0hnk7cn29fmaq9mz588 Freerse users also came forward to speak up and testify on our behalf. I explained all of this to the opensats staff.
But opensats completely ignored these real development records and user feedback. They only cared about the little green dots on GitHub.
The absurdity is that this "unwritten rule" wasn't included in any application guidelines. They didn't even bother to try the applicant's product, look at the code, or consider user feedback; they only stared at the GitHub page.
If opensats is truly going to insist on this formalism,
then they should just change their name to "Little Green Dot sats."
—Because in their eyes, a row of little green dots is more important than real users and product value.
They would rather fund projects that nobody uses but have many little green dots on GitHub than listen to the voices of real users.
