JACK HAS NEVER TOLD THE BOARD WHAT TO DO AND I DO NOT THINK SEEDSIGNER IS A BITKEY COMPETITOR. WE HAVE FUNDED MANY PROJECTS THAT COULD BE SEEN AS COMPETITORS TO BLOCK AND TWITTER. I AM GRATEFUL FOR JACK'S DONATION BUT AGREE THE OPTICS ARE NOT GREAT WHICH IS WHY I HAVE BEEN LASER FOCUSED ON INCREASING OUR DONATION BASE. THERE IS A TRADEOFF TO PUBLIC VOTING RECORDS AS WELL. THERE IS A REASON WHY BALLOT BOXES HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN SECRET. MAKING THEM PUBLIC IS NOT A DECISION THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. BUT AS I SAID ABOVE, I VOTED YES ON THAT SPECIFIC APP. FOR IT TO BE APPROVED 4 OF THE REMAINING 8 BOARD MEMBERS WOULD HAVE TO VOTE YES AS WELL. THIS IS A HIGH BAR BUT IMPORTANT TO REDUCE THE INFLUENCE OF ANY INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER.

What would allow for a reapplication that may pass the bar? It’s critical infra for many, myself included.

It’s all love, we have the tough conversations because we care. At the end of the day everyone should support devs directly and support @npub10pen...n34f knowing the tradeoffs. Onward 🫡

Thank you for the answer

Maybe the rest of the board should improve on their knowledge about this 🤔

I would sponsor hardware for 8 seedsigners for the board! you have to build and use a seedsigner to feel the value

Alright lads, time to break out the PowerPoint slides 🫡

right. tradeoffs. if i wanted to know where my money went and how it was used, i'd donate directly to devs. if i didn't overly care and i trusted an organization to do it on my behalf so that i could focus on other things, i'd use opensats.

I have not publicly spoken much or asked questions about this for a few reasons. Firstly because I consider you to be a personal friend and I feel that you try to do the right thing in each of the projects and organizations that you are involved with. You helped our project out in numerous ways, especially early on when our core concept was brand new and still being proven out. Neither opensats nor dorsey owes our project anything. I have been very clear about this, and I moreover feel that opensats is a net good for both the bitcoin and the nostr communities. But I have also avoided asking questions about the status of grants, much less about potential conflicts of interest, because I did not want to spoil Keith's chances at a grant, or negatively impact anyone else who might apply in the future for a SeedSigner-related grant. I think this speaks to the same self-censorship dynamics that jb55 has referenced. You insinuate in the above that there has been at least one vote on a SeedSigner related grant. This would be news to me because I had the understanding that applications related to SeedSigner were being considered but were deactivated when it became known that Keith had received funding from the HRF. While a required threshold of "yes" votes for a successful grant is of course entirely reasonable, "no" votes (especially emphatic ones from persons of influence) can cut quite effectively in the opposite direction. nvk's repeated, persistent, very public criticisms of our project communicate something like personally motivated animus rather than any sort of good-faith conscientious objection. Even were he to openly abstain from a formal vote on SeedSigner related grants (which would be in line with opensats' publicly established policies) other board members are likely to be influenced by his numerous public statements. It's honestly troubling that someone running a company that embraces "source available" as an attempt to rebrand what open source means, and who has referred to good/faith FOSS proponents as "commies", should be in a position to decide who does, or who does not, receive open source grant funding. Some very legitimate questions are being raised about the parties providing funding, their motivations, the entities receiving funding (and those who aren't), the specific tech they're working on, and those who are directly (and indirectly) involved in the funding decision making process. I don't think these questions are being asked because of prototypical bitcoiner contrarian suspicion, but rather are the result of an evolving pattern of observable events; some might call what they are seeing as potential "aligned malincentives". The opensats funding dynamics and scale may also be arriving at a point where larger structural dynamics are coming into play and a "just trust me" approach to public relations and organizational ethics becomes increasingly less and less viable. So where from here? I don't have a good answer and none of these are my decisions to make. Hopefully opensats just has a short-term public perception challenge that can be resolved with better communication and more transparency. But bitcoiners are a skeptical bunch and these questions aren't going away if they aren't addressed. Lastly -- I believe that you personally have a good heart and I'm rooting for your success. (NB - I am speaking here under the exorbitant privilege of operating this account as SeedSigner "the man"; my comments may not reflect the opinions of all, or even of any, of our contributors.)

Wait NVK thinks FOSS is communism or that people who do it are communist? Guess I'm a communist then.

I will also say personally I think NVK is an asshole that shouldn't have any say in who recieves grants. Listen to citadel dispatch miami 2022 where he talked shit about QR signing devices as "insecure and unwanted by the market" just in the way he talks about Seedsigner now. (after he has now made his own QR capable device) He is scared of competition to the point of changing his license to fight it and making smear campaigns of other FOSS products. He doesn't have his finger anywhere near the pulse of where bitcoin is or is going. Coinkite still doesn't take lightning because he's a stubborn dickhead. He is not a FOSS contributor, but a FOSS abuser.