I have a question. If Opensats receives substantial funds to funnel into dev projects (and the fact that it is 100% passthrough is laudable), the Opensats board will become a powerful entity in the Bitcoin world. Everyone knows that power corrupts. Have you thought about a mechanism to limit this power? Why have 9 permanent board members? 

 You mean, have a rotating board? 🤔 

 Election by lot from those with skin in the game? (However defined.) 

 Yeah, this is always a problem with a board sitting on a big pot of money: figuring out who should be on the board and for how long. 

 I think term limits would make sense. Election is difficult because there is no clear electorate. 

 Term limits are often useful.
Donors could be electors. 🤔 

 Not sure about that, otherwise it would be the ETFs indirectly deciding what gets developed. 

 Do you think things will be developed that the ETFs don't want? 

 For sure. Likewise, I think ETFs may want (or be compelled) to have things developed that most Bitcoiners don't want 

 No, I mean...
You think that's even a possibility? That the fund would ever finance a project that the biggest donors don't want? 

 With the current board, definitely 

  @Laeserin  This is what I meant:

nostr:note1acv2njun5x8cyv8nv55z3yvzvlkjxtz879cl6hn8s7ehpuj0myus3n0f28 

 Hmm. I don't really follow. 

 The ETFs will definitely be against privacy 

 Oh, yes. Of course. 

 i'm not sure about that... they only have to be transparent in their records, being transparent on chain is probably to their detriment in fact