I would say that is very much in question, but yours is still valid. Something that has already been built could always have been forked. The choice of project environments and developers likely to innovate where it otherwise would not have happened without funding remains the same. The efficacy remains to be seen, same for the result of the innovations. It looks to me like there is opportunity in facilitating freedom to take chances toward expanding the net benefit of the space and in free time to develop obvious needs.

The man who has spent years inside a protocol knows where it breaks because he was there when it broke. Claude can help him move faster. It cannot replace him. OpenSats is not funding typing. They are funding people who know things that cannot be prompted for.

Real *Concrete* impact would be nice together with a explicity and/or implict projects that failed to delivered and why (?) so new applicants have practical and pragmatic references. This would also benefit the selection process for OpenSats