Your concerns are valid, thanks for sharing those notes but I don't see anyone making the argument that grants are the way.

> I don’t like when things are presented in misleading ways. I have no beef with the idea of grants, but I feel something named OpenSats should be more open about its functioning. 

I agree that being more transparent would help clear some FUD about OpenSats. I posted about it not so long ago:

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqla9dawkjc4trc7dgf88trpsq2uxvhmmpkxua607nc5g6a634sv5qyd8wumn8ghj7urewfsk66ty9enxjct5dfskvtnrdakj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcqyqtahxypt42cmsv2vra82guaanwgjeffr7v29l9czev906xpuvmcweqvucf

As a nostr committee member I'm okay with all my opinions and votes being public. Grantees shouldn't be doxed but I don't see why the grant proposal and amounts shouldn't be public for transparency. It's not my decision tho, I just help review grant proposals.

People tend to think that the board of OpenSats chooses who gets the money but it's mostly the nostr committee, board members usually chime in if a tiebreaker vote is needed. There are several people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives in the committee and none of them have a vested interest in Primal. I won't directly mention them but they are people that have contributed a lot to nostr and genuinely want the best for the protocol.

> I don’t like seeing people with a successful past in data mining operate on Nostr, especially in a client that engages in npub/email matching.

Nostr is going to be data mined whether you like it or not, it's all out in the open. Nostr is for the stuff that you are ok sharing with the world. That said I think a KYCd wallet/client is a terrible idea and have voiced my disgust about it in the past.