Oddbean

THE MOST ACTIONABLE WAY TO PREVENT SLAVE TECH DYSTOPIA IS TO FOCUS A SHIT TON OF MONEY AND SUPPORT ON OPEN SOURCE CONTRIBUTORS. THEN USE AND PROMOTE THE TOOLS THEY BUILD. OPENSATS IS ATTEMPTING TO DO THIS AT A SCALE AND EFFICIENCY NEVER ATTEMPTED BEFORE. GOOD MORNING. 🫡

AMAZING! CAN OPENSATS PLEASE GIVE A GRANT TO @verbiricha SO CONTENT CREATORS SUCH AS MYSELF CAN LINK AN EMOJI(THAT WE CUSTOM CREATE) TO AN ARTICLE OR LINK. CAN OPENSATS DO SOMETHING? nostr:nevent1qqsyqu6097lfjf6f24jt2uw0v4pnavwq0uncc8m9y7m8gtrffsspckspg3mhxw309ahx7um5wfkxzmnyxfnkgaehvuehjdehvd6xvar0wemxjmphxem8zatfwpuk6mehw3ekxarv0pcxjamtdejhv7nxd9jzummwd9hkutczyq7fsjfc80023qash5t0ans76dkn0cmumh3uusa306jwjxfwcyfgjqcyqqqqqqg6ne02f

@🦄Onigirl🐹🐉 I’ve applied for an OpenSats grant to fund my onboarding client. If they grant this, our client will have a space to highlight content creators like your self (of AMAZING Nostr tutorials) and to “share” your creative content with new friends. Social Onboarding will ROCK Nostr.

I am making a “social onboarding” client because “friends inviting friends” to Nostr will NOT ONLY strengthen our webs of trust but IS ALSO pretty straightforward to incentivize and measure for success. nostrmeet.me This is a model that future onboarding clients can adopt AND possibly a service which Nostr adjacent businesses might benefit from sponsoring. I’m counting on OpenSats to see this vision with me and get us over the “hurdle” of first target release. I applied 5 weeks ago…. and am pumped for a summer full of hard work. LFG

Is open sats planning to fund knots devs anytime soon? As you know some of the core devs may have been compromised and they seem to be showing subtle support for spam (sorry scam) on #bitcoin. Would also be nice if you talk more about knots vs bitcoin core difference to your audience. I have seen a lot of people who are not in support of spam but they just don't know how to disincentivize this behaviour.

The hypocrisy has to stop By running both a VC fund (1031) and Open Sats a 501c you create a bias. You can’t have a fiduciary responsibility to your investors and allocate to FOSS devs without a bias no matter how you structure these entities. Let me paint scenario where an open source dev is looking to make a 1031 funded company obsolete, would open sats fund it? I have a hard time believing open sats would especially since Odell would be liable for damages for breaking his fiduciary responsibility. The biggest problem is that Open sats doesn’t fund anonymous developers. That means if Satoshi had come to Open Sats for funding he would have been denied. Open Sats would be better off creating a list of devs / projects for people to zap / crowdfund instead of being a middleman. I already know -oUr dOnOrS need tax deductions. Say it out loud then The entire existence of open sats is to give donors tax breaks and KYC devs. cool got it

Let me lay out a little on how governance works inside organisations and companies: Fiduciary duty is just one of the many obligations an office holder has and is not and should not over ride all others. The Milton Friedman school of extreme capitalism that espouses prioritising shareholder returns above all other factors has a large part to play in why public capital markets today are so utterly f’d up Okay, so what are the priorities then? Mission Why does the organisation exist and what is it here for; OpenSats, Brink and HRF all have clear mission statements. Mission is first and foremost People Attract and nurture the people aligned to your mission who have the skills and talents you don’t, because they are the ones *who help deliver on the mission * Profit In a for-profit venture like a company, you need to get to cash flow positive in order to become master or mistress of your own destiny - as a founder you therefore carefully choose investors who buy into your mission Ten31, EgoDeath, Recursive, Stillmark, Lightning Ventures etc etc are all Bitcoin only as a core part of their mission and consequently align investment with founders and projects those mission aligns with theirs Further, it’s also why investors (not just VC forms) want to meet founders and understand what makes them tick; early stage investing is about investing in the people who, just maybe, can bring the vision to life. In the process of doing that they may generate a return for the investors .. but it’s clearly: 1. Mission 2. People 3. Profit A key point to make in all of these types of organisations is that choices are made carefully because demands for funding (grant requests or startup funding) always vastly outstrips available supply .. and these decisions are not made by individuals but collaboratively If you’ve primarily worked alone you won’t perhaps appreciate the value that a breadth of perspectives brings to hard decisions. I’ve looked at the board makeup of OpenSats and Ten31 and EgoDeath and i don’t see a single individual in there who’s a “yes” person; smart, brutally objective and unafraid to be combative with pretty much anyone As you say though - there are other ways to try and the open source funding space would benefit you from creating those too .. get to it 💪

This is how I feel about letting people say a viewable source code is the same as open source software. Open = open to use, full stop. https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2018/09/10/tragedy-of-the-commons-clause/

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.