Oddbean new post about login | logout I’m extremely sensitive to self censorship. I noticed this in myself and have trying to put it into words in a way that is not trying to shit on anyone or cause bad blood. I am just concerned of the effect it might be having on this situation. I dislike the feeling so much that I have been working hard on trying to establish an independent income stream just so I feel like I can speak freely again. These effects are real. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the support, I just dislike this feeling that I need to censor myself more.
Nope! You have the army of plebs behind you! 🫂
Odell and OpenSats say they support freedom of speech. Make them put their money where their mouth is (literally) and feel free to criticize openly. If they pull funding, it proves they are hipocrites, if not, they are likely honest actors. High risk for grantees, but high reward for the community either way.
The average person who has yet to get a grant will not criticize. I don’t even feel like I’m criticizing, I’m just describing how I feel about the situation and speculating on the effects it might be having. Not intending to start anything, but it’s clear from the replies here I’m not the only one. I don’t have a solution either, other than to tap into other grant orgs like hrf and establishing other revenue streams, because any amount of reassurance is not going to help and it’s not like this conflict is going to go away.
It’s an unfortunate reality that when dealing with the inherent problems of centralization, some people can’t grasp the systemic cause and effect, and need to blame or attack other people. Centralized funding creates centralized behavior.
If we want to avoid single points of failure opensats creates a bigger problem than it solves…? The goal is Liberty right? Freedom of speech and freedom of money. It seems the best peaceful way is to transfer capital and crash the fiat printer war machine- i.e. more high-income fiat jobs that transfer capital to the network helps more than living completely inside the circular economy? Can the entire project be more of a part-time thing?
It would be great if they could explain what safeguards they have in place to mitigate bias, and to avoid a conflict of interest. This topic has been brought up before, but instead of providing an explanation, or reassurance to the public, there was just a bunch of yelling and “trust me, bro” replies. This is why I, and why I always will, simply pay for what I use and support the devs that are open with their stated goals and outlook on their projects, directly. There’s no reason for me to donate to an organization, when I can pay/donate directly. Direct funding with bitcoin is a much better alternative than sending it to somebody who then gains power and kingmaker status.
Radical sovereignty. Radical leverage. Radical connection. Orgs are great when you aren’t in touch with the people you want to support. Our devs are *here* and you can talk to them and support them directly. Whole point of BTC imo.
I can’t figure it out for the life of me. Why would people give their precious sats to a middle man. Laziness? Lack of trust in themselves and their ability to decipher value? Like you said, we have a direct line to the people building the future we want to see and be a part of.
Rich people do that! They just know that there is a dedicated team who have been in bitcoin for a long period of time that can figure out to whom to pass this sats. Plus don’t forget that for the big donations you can write it off on your taxes.
Yes, I understand the tax implications and understand what wealthy people do. I’m referring to small nobodys such as myself. For me, the tax savings are not worth giving control over to a board, which may not be aligned with my objectives.
Same!
Very true words. There is no good reason why to send sats to a distributor when you can directly tip the creators you want to see supported. On the other hand I see a point in for example ETFs not giving sats to creators they like but rather to an organization that is already trusted and committed to doing this without a focus on the ETF's interests. But then again I would prefer if big donors would setup trusts themselves instead of just feeding one king-maker. nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzq5x9ngwtyv7s34dpldyn75svddwh7aazhfpwgengqx37xe4s5qn7qqsrzzd2nq5c7th6f6m5mr20lma9e3z9ss9325mdekm6x7xw8jeef7q3vp0pw
I pay too. But the users instead. The users are even more important.
Bro, you invented Zaps. Update the client with a v4v dev feature allowing for a percentage of every zap is captured and sent to Damus. You missed that one thing during initial implementation. nostr:nevent1qqsr55vqc7558v43je2jv0je4p8xyf8xwslttnmp8e96zqayg9942gspremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet59upzpx7hpc8nqvxx23sguku3jcgc5am0ycyfvwz00ku7skgajp7lh0t3qvzqqqqqqyl8fa4l
Damus has this feature when you attach nwc and have note zaps unlocked
Most important part of of v4v is the ask. If this exists, make it prominent and make it the preferred method. Merch is a great option, but enabling passive value flow is critical.
Looking forward to making this more prominent in the multi-platform client. i always preferred this over subscriptions. Apple just fucked me over.
I feel the same, I've never had an independent income stream, I just speak my mind and accept the consequences if they come. Yes I've been fired a few times and had to restart all over again, but I couldn't really be any different if I tried.
Why do you feel the need to self censor?