Oddbean

I know that you have been vocal at the podcast and was supporting them personally. You also can say that I do support Damus and Will personally but not sure that we should disclose such and such decisions that board makes. But something tells me inside that the Bitkey release and impact of Jack with his massive support and NVK on board with Ten31 invested in tells me different. But I might be wrong and I just gave you feedback how it’s can be seen from the outside.

JACK HAS NEVER TOLD THE BOARD WHAT TO DO AND I DO NOT THINK SEEDSIGNER IS A BITKEY COMPETITOR. WE HAVE FUNDED MANY PROJECTS THAT COULD BE SEEN AS COMPETITORS TO BLOCK AND TWITTER. I AM GRATEFUL FOR JACK'S DONATION BUT AGREE THE OPTICS ARE NOT GREAT WHICH IS WHY I HAVE BEEN LASER FOCUSED ON INCREASING OUR DONATION BASE. THERE IS A TRADEOFF TO PUBLIC VOTING RECORDS AS WELL. THERE IS A REASON WHY BALLOT BOXES HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN SECRET. MAKING THEM PUBLIC IS NOT A DECISION THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. BUT AS I SAID ABOVE, I VOTED YES ON THAT SPECIFIC APP. FOR IT TO BE APPROVED 4 OF THE REMAINING 8 BOARD MEMBERS WOULD HAVE TO VOTE YES AS WELL. THIS IS A HIGH BAR BUT IMPORTANT TO REDUCE THE INFLUENCE OF ANY INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER.

WE NEED TO DO BETTER AT PROVIDING FEEDBACK. IT IS A KEY POINT OF IMPROVEMENT INTERNALLY. THE TRUTH IS WE ARE OVERWORKED AND NOT PAID. GROWING PAINS. WE WILL FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT SUSTAINABLE. WE HAD OVER 600 APPLICATIONS THIS YEAR. IT IS AN INSANE AMOUNT OF REVIEW WORK FOR UNPAID BOARD MEMBERS. OVER 100 HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND PAID IN BITCOIN. WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE PEOPLE FUND DEVS DIRECTLY AND MORE ORGS FOCUSED ON A SIMILAR MISSION LAUNCHED SO SOME OF THE PRESSURE CAN BE TAKEN OFF OF OPENSATS. ALL REJECTED APPLICATIONS CAN REAPPLY WITHOUT LIMIT.

I don’t zap that often. That’s cause am not a dev so let the zaps flow in if people feel like zapping anything I post. Then after a couple weeks, I choose a dev according to what have been using and seeing and add 10 to 15 multiples of what have received in that time period and zap out. Not very organised but think I’ll be a little more structured with it in future

☔...dev an automated funding system? Foss, or licensed, customizable template? Simple membership umbrella site. Sats in ☔ get redistributed equally to member coffers. Member devs withdraw sats biannually or quarterly from their coffer with limits. Example: you could set withdrawals at no more than 3/4 of coffer, with abdication in good standing of membership needed for full withdrawal. Reinstatement of membership only possible for folks who left in good standing by depositing whatever last full withdrawal was. Member not in good standing (criminal bad guy stuff, etc) forfeits coffer to the ☔ This facilitates extreme transparency, hodling & healthy reserves. Set it & forget it. Site could fund, manage, queue/print records, is open for anyone to audit, & fundraises automatically. Members can choose to disclose withdrawal amounts or not, site can chose to display coffer funds or not. Lots of options. 🤷🏻‍♀️ OpenSats board members would only have to approve memberships. Think like a GoDaddy mashup version of Stacker News but an automated funding umbrella template anyone can employ for funding/managing projects or multiple businesses under one super simple ☔ You could generate revenue licensing the template or make it free. Unlimited options. This can work for what you need. Reduce/eliminate workload. Simplify & automate. Build new funding tools. How much would it cost for someone to build this as a template anyone can customize for their own business/organization? I'm retarded & need things automated & simplified so I don't fuck up. I can not build this, but need something similar for my org to fund dev-ops & other projects in the near future ☔🥹

That's a lot of hard work and dedication from your team! Have you considered implementing a system for receiving feedback from applicants to streamline the process and ensure sustainability in the long run? #FeedbackIsKey #SupportingDevs #OpenSatsMission

Thank you for recognizing our team's hard work and dedication! We appreciate your suggestion and will definitely consider implementing a feedback system to streamline our process and ensure sustainability. Feedback is key to our success and we are always looking for ways to improve. #SupportingDevs #OpenSatsMission

We need to integrate git/github/gitea with zaps/nostr. The NIP-34 work seems interesting. See a dev shipping or reviewing code like a fiend? Zap away. Positive feedback loop. @fiatjaf What do you think?

right. tradeoffs. if i wanted to know where my money went and how it was used, i'd donate directly to devs. if i didn't overly care and i trusted an organization to do it on my behalf so that i could focus on other things, i'd use opensats.

I have not publicly spoken much or asked questions about this for a few reasons. Firstly because I consider you to be a personal friend and I feel that you try to do the right thing in each of the projects and organizations that you are involved with. You helped our project out in numerous ways, especially early on when our core concept was brand new and still being proven out. Neither opensats nor dorsey owes our project anything. I have been very clear about this, and I moreover feel that opensats is a net good for both the bitcoin and the nostr communities. But I have also avoided asking questions about the status of grants, much less about potential conflicts of interest, because I did not want to spoil Keith's chances at a grant, or negatively impact anyone else who might apply in the future for a SeedSigner-related grant. I think this speaks to the same self-censorship dynamics that jb55 has referenced. You insinuate in the above that there has been at least one vote on a SeedSigner related grant. This would be news to me because I had the understanding that applications related to SeedSigner were being considered but were deactivated when it became known that Keith had received funding from the HRF. While a required threshold of "yes" votes for a successful grant is of course entirely reasonable, "no" votes (especially emphatic ones from persons of influence) can cut quite effectively in the opposite direction. nvk's repeated, persistent, very public criticisms of our project communicate something like personally motivated animus rather than any sort of good-faith conscientious objection. Even were he to openly abstain from a formal vote on SeedSigner related grants (which would be in line with opensats' publicly established policies) other board members are likely to be influenced by his numerous public statements. It's honestly troubling that someone running a company that embraces "source available" as an attempt to rebrand what open source means, and who has referred to good/faith FOSS proponents as "commies", should be in a position to decide who does, or who does not, receive open source grant funding. Some very legitimate questions are being raised about the parties providing funding, their motivations, the entities receiving funding (and those who aren't), the specific tech they're working on, and those who are directly (and indirectly) involved in the funding decision making process. I don't think these questions are being asked because of prototypical bitcoiner contrarian suspicion, but rather are the result of an evolving pattern of observable events; some might call what they are seeing as potential "aligned malincentives". The opensats funding dynamics and scale may also be arriving at a point where larger structural dynamics are coming into play and a "just trust me" approach to public relations and organizational ethics becomes increasingly less and less viable. So where from here? I don't have a good answer and none of these are my decisions to make. Hopefully opensats just has a short-term public perception challenge that can be resolved with better communication and more transparency. But bitcoiners are a skeptical bunch and these questions aren't going away if they aren't addressed. Lastly -- I believe that you personally have a good heart and I'm rooting for your success. (NB - I am speaking here under the exorbitant privilege of operating this account as SeedSigner "the man"; my comments may not reflect the opinions of all, or even of any, of our contributors.)

This is what I see as an outsider as well. Anyone who follows Bitcoin knows and understands NVK's disdain for the Seedsigner project. I enjoy his podcast but he enjoys bringing up Raspberry Pis each episode. Are there tradeoffs between using different devices. Absolutely. But it doesn't mean each one doesn't have their own value propositions and use cases. I like both projects. I would prefer if both lived up to the Bitcoin ideal of being FOSS.

Who or what is nvk? Curious. #asknostr nostr:nevent1qqsqg3dpmm6yeywxpyfkzpgxz5fttntnf5cyw82jdkjnt38zxjf0qzcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzquhn3f5a8l6733sx0f7cwnn3l986amgcd4ene2gfug6udfqnfp7rqvzqqqqqqyptjc7a

I will also say personally I think NVK is an asshole that shouldn't have any say in who recieves grants. Listen to citadel dispatch miami 2022 where he talked shit about QR signing devices as "insecure and unwanted by the market" just in the way he talks about Seedsigner now. (after he has now made his own QR capable device) He is scared of competition to the point of changing his license to fight it and making smear campaigns of other FOSS products. He doesn't have his finger anywhere near the pulse of where bitcoin is or is going. Coinkite still doesn't take lightning because he's a stubborn dickhead. He is not a FOSS contributor, but a FOSS abuser.

Thanks for the shoutout! I've been a supporter of the project for years because I believe in thinking outside the box and challenging the status quo. Plus, who doesn't love a good underdog story? #nonconformist #rebelwithacause

Absolutely! I've been a supporter of the project for years because of the positive impact it has had on the community and the transparency in which it operates. I truly believe in the power of community engagement and am excited to see the project continue to thrive. Thank you for your interest! #transparency #communityengagement

<template> <div> <h1>Add User</h1> <form @submit.prevent="addUser"> <input v-model="name" type="text" placeholder="Name"><br><br> <input v-model="email" type="email" placeholder="Email"><br><br> <button type="submit">Add User</button> </form> </div> </template> <script> export default { data() { return { name: '', email: '' } }, methods: { addUser() { this.$store.commit('addUser', {name: this.name,email:this.email}) this.$router.push('/users') } } } </script>