Value for Value is the way. I would happily support NostrGram.

Good to hear that you have positive thoughts based on that discussion. It seems that interacting with users openly and seeking genuine feedback/discussion is how this is going to move forward to everyone's benefit. I also think that nostr users can keep in mind the hard work developers in nostr are putting in and keep interacting and rewarding those heroes whenever possible.😁

#[0] I want to thank you for Nostrgram.co, it is an amazing Nostr client. I love the extended filters, like filtering for Tidal songs! This is my "go to" nostr client. Thank you! ⚡

This is ON FIRE!! Small tweak, if you could make the active filter be an icon either in place of the Media icon (preferred) or next to it before the three dots. So if I have Tidal filter on, the Tidal icon is there, etc. If not that, some other way of showing the active filter on the main screen. 🔥

This. Good advice

Here are some. Many left out. Please add others to the list. These people deserve some love.

#[2] - the one and only

#[3] #[4] - nostr wine

#[5] - amethyst

#[6] - damus

#[7] - nostrgram

#[8] - nostr build

#[9] - just a cool dude who contributes above and beyond

#[10] - snort

#[11] -snort

Do you think all information should be free or do you believe that charging for information is acceptable? I'm interested in your opinion and reasoning on this matter.

I've been pondering this scenario as pertains to nostr for some time now. It should seem obvious but I think many nostr users are unaware that the work done in clients and relays has been, for the most part, done by people who in many ways are kind of volunteers. The pressure to "sell", for any protocol that gets approached by a big player/ corporation, must be intense. Relays seem to be moving forward to a paid model but as yet clients seem stuck in limbo? Interested to know how you think financial models develop from the client side?

Do you think all information should be free or do you believe that charging for information is acceptable? I'm interested in your opinion and reasoning on this matter.

I don't think you get to decide how much the information you produce is worth to someone else. So I would refrain from using phrases like "should be rewarded" and appeals to food on the table unless you want to be mistaken for a socialist (which I know you are not, and I suppose I'm making my point too forcefully). I'm sure you want to be rewarded well enough to put food on the table, but imaging that something is wrong with the world if that doesn't happen, rather than with your business model, is a dead end. If you aspire to sell information (perhaps software) moralizing about it only creates a beggar business model (some people will feel bad and tip you). Software famously is dirt cheap and near impossible to form a business model on top of. That why SaaS took off. SaaS works by hiding the information instead of sharing it, since by sharing it you immediately lose the advantage of being the only one with it. Sorry if I am too much of a harsh realist.

What I find promising are recurring subscriptions from people who find value in the work.

I like Gigi's approach here. At the end of each article, he puts a LN address and a link to a donations page.

I simply believe that information should not be charged for, but rather information found valuable should be rewarded. This allows people assign certain value to particular bits on information. I believe it’s only logical as value is subjective and pricing you podcasts / newsletters you lose listeners/ readers. And many (especially people from the less prosperous countries) are left out.

One of the side effects of lack of access to funding/ financial reward for work done by academics/ scientists in universities/ research facilities all over the world, is that it leaves them open to be lured into accepting financial reward from large state actors who then are able to force political pressure on the academics who have come to be dependant on the state in question. This has been a major tactic of the ccp who, for the past few decades, have established a massive funding machine that coopts and entices academics, scientists and researchers right across the spectrum of academia all over the world. I agree with Jleger that providers of value should be compensated and I feel that there needs to be a massive overhaul of the way that we think about how, as a society, we fund knowledge creation. My bias is that the state should be kept out of that process as much as possible and that means it's up to the individual , on a societal level, to innovate a way to pay for what we benefit from so that those who are working on furthering that benefit can be free from being beholden to powers with ulterior motives.

Sure you can charge for information it’s just a horrible business model

This was indeed problematic prior to bitcoin / lightning. Now we have all the tools and the only challenge remaining is cultural. I’m working hard on promoting the value 4 value culture (especially in the Russian speaking community) and I can’t argue with you — most people aren’t used to sending a few sats as a thank you for the useful info.

However as we explain the damage that “free services” are associated with (e.g. “you are the product” problem with Google like services) and the bias caused by paid sponsorship, more people will realize the power of value 4 value.

Paid content, like paywalls and paid subscriptions aren’t super efficient as well cause anyone can pay a few bucks, get the materials and upload them to torrents for hundreds and thousands to access for free (movies are probably the best example).

Is this question referencing “informations *wants* to be free”?

Charging for information is acceptable as it will lead to more and better information. Good journalism cost money, and incentives matter.

Copyright should be very short lived though.

I don't like black and white thinking. One example of superior free information is linux.