nostr:nprofile1qqsgqfapsalnnesrmt7xxfu7qp95akwlscw33n5pm8zrclt3xhdg7egprdmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujucnfw33k76twwpshy6ewvdhk6qgawaehxw309ahx7um5wghx6at5d9h8jampd3kx2apwvdhk6tcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhscyvr9p

OpenSats should openly disclose that they KYC devs so that people know how their donations will be deployed and devs know if they should bother with applying.

After the verdict from the Netherlands it's crazy to promote an idea of KYCing devs. It's like giving them a carrot to compromise their pseudonymity.

It's sad Matt that since OpenSats started you stopped promoting https://bitcoindevlist.com/ which is much better initiative as it's direct (p2p) funding without KYC.

It's even better to simply encourage donating towards maintenance/development of the tools you use or would like to see being delivered, without any centralised lists.

Doesn't HRF require grantees to KYC in front of them? That's what I've heard and if true then it could be considered a trap as in the future contributing to bitcoin privacy preserving software may be deemed as ML. I've heard about JAM grantees who rejected the money and that was one of the reasons they did.