#growNostr

GM bro

Liminal spaces

Remote work is effective on a Bitcoin standard.

It is a slow train wreck on a fiat standard.

Conservationists are stuck up on the need for regulations and requirements for mission delivery.

The problem is that for the marginal addition to the ruleset you increase the complexity of implementing the mission.

The problem is we have environment degradation happening daily. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of soil washing away with every rain event, fires ripping through ecosystems restarting succession back to day 1.

Conservation missions will never succeed with fiat systems.

Followed.

Anytime I read about a new Nostr integration my mind starts spinning with the possibilities. Where this road goes, no one knows, but holy cow it's exciting.

Nice ad hominem attack. You've told me all I need to know.

wrong word (fane). meant to say avoid

Be wary of those who will criticize and fane constructive feedback.

It is extremely easy and cheap to tear down, but it is orders of magnitude more difficult and requires more skill to build.

I'm a person sending notes and other stuff transmitted on relay.

Then be specific in that point.

Obviously there's some miscommunication happening here.

I feel as though our understanding of governance, and politics is too far apart to have any constructive conversation around this topic.

Like, if you want to engage with my points and try to make your own points about why they're flawed - do it. But don't stand there and cast aspertions at my motives when you started off your response with "I don't know this fella"

Satoshi mined a million bitcoins and never took a single payday.

something to be said for that ethic.

this is a scammer. I didn't mean to like the note.

Then those models should compete, if they exist.

I'm just glad that we have solutions now for the medium term to provide some stability for the growth and maintenance of these open protocols. The work I do couldn't begin to happen if not for some amount of centralized decision making.

Price should act as a good signalling mechanism in the long run for these decisions. The reality is that we just aren't at that point right now. Bitcoin and Nostr are bootstrapping a new system, but in a free and open way.

Governance of the grant process for the existing recipients seems to take your issue into account. But if you still disagree with their decisions, you are free to develop your own system. You are free to advocate for your own methods that would be superior.

We are free, we don't need permission.

interesting outperformance on the 4 year cycle chart.

many will say this is due to the ETF launch, which is true in some regards.

There's underlying conditions in Bitcoin, though, that lead me to believe 2017-present is the same "cycle".

In any economy we require specialization of work to provide more value across the entire system. Is this specialization a "filter"?

Or are we supposed to control the means of production and consumption in a 100% self sovereign way?

I ask these questions to challenge your idea about putting "filters" between producers and consumers. Keep in mind that the middle men we see in Bitcoin and Nostr cannot display the same behavior as the middle men in fiat.

Completely putting faith in a benevolent community on the transition of our native money from a store of value over to a medium of exchange would be incredibly naive.

Grants offer a different model, which decrease uncertainty around the ebbs and flows of user adoption you and I both know is bound to happen in Bitcoin and Nostr.

If your problem is with the fact that some have, and some do not have grants - then that's an idea that needs more reflection.