Laeserin's avatar
Laeserin laeserin@theforest.nostr1.com 1 year ago
I mean, is it a more effective and/or efficient application of the same amount of funds? If I have €200k sats and I want to give them to devs, is it better to give it to a board or to donate directly? We all assume the board has the most information, which is often the case in a particular case, but is it possible across all donors? I suspect not. The board has one particular set of information, but not necessarily more than the entire group of donors. Each donor has a particular subset of information and can probably make educated guesses within that sphere, that would add up to more accuracy in aggregate. Is central planning really more efficient?
↑ Parent

Replies (28)

azz's avatar
azz azz@aciedo.com 1 year ago
I’d just make a list of all the devs, talk about your intention with them and get to know them (probably a full time jobs worth of time here but very fun) then fund the ones you get along with!
1 replies ↓
Tetsu Tamasi's avatar
Tetsu Tamasi tetsu@nostrplebs.com 1 year ago
I dont think this is particularly controversial. I would use open sats model when I’d want my donation to be distributed to different people. If I want one dev that I appreciate to get my sats, I just send sats to that particular dev without any middleman. As long as you contributing to bitcoin devs is up to you how you donate. It’s your money and your decision and there’s no need to use “the best model” or base your decision on a public poll 🙃
2 replies ↓
Laeserin's avatar
Laeserin laeserin@theforest.nostr1.com 1 year ago
I think the "backend guys" will end up getting lots of free marketing and zaps from "frontend guys", which makes economic sense. The person who only interacts with a social media client doesn't need to know who runs the git client it's hosted on. The person using the git client is the customer of that person. It's business-to-business (B2B). This is why "zap who you know" actually works well and distributes the money in a logical fashion.
Laeserin's avatar
Laeserin laeserin@theforest.nostr1.com 1 year ago
I think the grants are useful as seed money for a novel program or to spend on training devs and stuff, but it's counterproductive to expect them to pay for everything forever. At some point, the thing is there and getting used and then the users need to at least consider pulling out their wallets.
1 replies ↓
karl Black's avatar
karl Black klacky@nostrpurple.com 1 year ago
Is there infrastructure in place to showplace devs looking for grants? Something like a kickstarter directly on Nostr where zaps could easily be crowdfunded. Notes get lost in the shuffle fairly quickly here.
3 replies ↓
verbiricha's avatar
verbiricha verbiricha@habla.news 1 year ago
it's populated with NIP-89 information so every time a dev creates an app and publishes the app definition to nostr it should appear there. nostr native and automatically updated which is pretty cool, @brugeman is the author.
2 replies ↓
node's avatar
node node@nostr.land 1 year ago
Yes. Looking at my feet. Much safer. Nostr will thrive if I look at my feet 😂😂💀
ManiMe's avatar
ManiMe manime@npub.bar 1 year ago
Centralization of resources is more efficient in every measurable way. But measurable efficiency does not always produce “desired” results… esp when what’s “desired” is unknown. “shooting from the hip” to solve problems in a fluid problem space … micro funding from distributed sources may be more effective. I DO think this model of funding can scale to support for larger and longer duration projects. But this nut won’t be easy to crack, and people gotta want it. Nostr has to want it.
1 replies ↓
↑