I can believe that Nostr may be funded, influenced, or promoted by bad actors with their own agendas. I have seen how quickly character assassination starts when someone is building or implementing something powerful. But I have to admit, turning up like this is genuinely hilarious: I can even accept the possibility that Nostr is promoted by some people because they think it is a poor solution, or because they believe it can be steered, captured, fragmented, or used for their own ends. But that does not answer the harder question. Why is Pubky better? Not just rhetorically. Structurally. Pubky seems to be trying to solve real problems: public key based identity, user held data, homeservers, portable hosting, semantic discovery, and DHT based routing. Those are serious ideas. They may address some of Nostr’s weaknesses around relay discovery, data portability, indexing, moderation, and user controlled storage. But if the claim is that Pubky is the better path, I would like to see that explained clearly. Can it scale beyond early adopters? Can it avoid recreating new gatekeepers at the homeserver or indexer layer? Does it actually reduce metadata exposure, or does it just move metadata to different infrastructure? Can it support genuine pseudonymity, private communication, and peer to peer payments in a way that is production ready? Can it integrate with Bitcoin, Lightning, Monero, and other payment systems without becoming captured by one funding interest? And most importantly, why should anyone believe the funders are altruistic? The answer cannot be “trust us”. The answer has to be architecture. Show the credible exit. Show the independent implementations. Show how users keep their data. Show how identities survive provider failure. Show how indexers can compete. Show how moderation does not become centralised control. Show how bridges can strengthen existing freedom tech instead of fragmenting it. There are clearly developers on Nostr genuinely trying to build something useful. So the argument cannot just be “Nostr has bad actors around it”. A better argument would be: Here is what Pubky solves. Here is what Nostr gets wrong. Here is what Pubky still does not solve. And here is how Pubky components could bridge into Nostr to fix real weaknesses without demanding that everyone abandon what already works. If Pubky is genuinely better, explain the mechanism. If it can scale, explain the scaling model. If it is less capturable, explain the failure modes. Otherwise it is not obviously a better protocol. It is just a different group of people asking for trust.