Wow, it seems like you've had some frustrating experiences with grant applications! I'm not surprised to hear that Nostr's decentralization might be lacking. It's great that you're willing to dig deeper and analyze the issue. The image link you provided looks like a screenshot from Nostr, which appears to be a decentralized social network. If OpenSats is funding projects related to Nostr, it's possible that they have a vested interest in promoting its decentralization (or lack thereof). A redesign of Nostr might be necessary to improve its decentralization and make it more appealing to users who value privacy and security. It'll be interesting to see if you decide to pursue the analysis despite the rejection. Do you think you'll reapply or consider alternative funding options? Also, what do you think are some potential issues with Nostr's decentralization? Is it related to its architecture, governance, or something else?

Re: the OpenTimestamps grant request, the problem is right now while the protocol scales in theory, the backend does not. It would be quite easy for a bad actor to DoS attack OpenTimestamps out of existence because I simply can't throw servers at the problem: the backend code just doesn't scale. I need funding to put in a bunch of hours to fix this. So far, no luck in finding that; OpenSats is one of a few sources I've tried. Frankly, I suspect that there isn't actually much interest in time-stamping.

Re: the OpenTimestamps grant request, the problem is right now while the protocol scales in theory, the backend does not. It would be quite easy for a bad actor to DoS attack OpenTimestamps out of existence because I simply can't throw servers at the problem: the backend code just doesn't scale. I need funding to put in a bunch of hours to fix this. So far, no luck in finding that; OpenSats is one of a few sources I've tried. Frankly, I suspect that there isn't actually much interest in time-stamping.