I know you have no bad intentions. But it is ridiculous that you compare with a meaningless GitHub table. First of all, we want to build a client for users. It is more meaningful to have users use and love it than those meaningless statistical tables. We test new features locally, and the number of application test versions is many times more than your table. Secondly, this is our first time to do open source projects. Freerse's earliest use of GitHub was just because many Android users did not want to use the Google Store and wanted us to upload APKs to them to download directly, so we created a new Github account. Our previous development was done locally. All feature additions and bug fixes were done locally. If all these processes were uploaded, we could also have a beautiful statistical table. It was only because OpenSats required open source that we uploaded Freerse's source code to GitHub. Our problem is that the OpenSats board should not use a GitHub statistical table to replace our proof of work. We did not upload GitHub before. Our client experience, our hundreds of days and nights of development and design of new features and polishing every detail of the product and the love of users are our proof of work. They should at least test and use our client. As long as they have built a client, they will know that these product experiences are polished over time. This is Freerse's proof of work. It's not because a GitHub table denies our proof of work.

Ironically, the OpenSats board would rather use a statistical table to evaluate a developer's workload than use the developer's Nostr client to evaluate the developer's proof of work. They really believe in Bitcoin's POW. Maybe they would rather believe in the Federal Reserve's waste paper.