Most grants I've seen are paid in stages exactly for this reason. Quarterly, monthly, etc. I doubt there are any strings attached if that's the case here. It's likely not worth pursuing regardless, other than maybe to take ownership of the project and branding to appoint new people. I'd like to see that here. They shouldn't be able to take and have the sole choice in closing the project entirely. The grant holder should be able to take the project over if they choose to. 

 Ah good to know about the stages. So you’re saying that Opensats can take over the project or you would want them to be able to take it over? 

 I'm saying it would be fair if that were the case. I don't think it's fair for investors, grant donors, etc to just be shafted and left with nothing unexpectedly. But that's on those parties for not having an agreement if they don't have one.  

 I also know nothing about their financials. I just  meant in general from what I've seen with grants 

 I understand. Thanks 

 No idea. I’m sure it’s between them and the grand foundation. They also had raised at least $300k in investor funding, and again that’s between them and their investors. I assume that’s why they left the business “operational” even though they’re killing off the only products they actually offer. Lol. It smells shady, and it hurts trust in other open source efforts and in the OpenSats vetting process. 

 Vetting process must be difficult. Seems impossible to know a project’s intensions a year in advance