SeedSigner on Nostr: X-posting this from the bird app, a continuation of my thoughts from earlier. cc ...
X-posting this from the bird app, a continuation of my thoughts from earlier.
cc LynAlden (npub1a2c…w83a)
I continue to think about this and the challenge is that it's much harder to profit from freedom tech (it's users are generally more anonymous and the software more freely distributed); centrally controlled systems are much easier to monetize and extract value from.
But it realistically costs time and money to build things, especially to build them well, so if funding is given it has to come from a place of idealism and hope with few strings, rather than from a place that is in search of investment multiples. Even grant money for FOSS tech in the bitcoin/nostr spaces is often tied to for-profit business models -- the nexus of venture and grant funding is a tricky place fraught with ethical pitfalls.
Just find capable people with proven track records who are building for the greater good and support them. The HRF (npub17xv…c9as) does this best as an organization IMHO (kudos to gladstein (npub1trr…hdpu) ck (npub1cf3…x7gk) et al). But also, personally dig in and really learn about projects that build freedom tech, and then give directly to the ones you think are doing important work. There are tons of high quality devs who work on freedom tech part time, or who flatly won't provide identity info for money. Direct donations reach these individuals whereas grants & bundled funds primarily target those working full time and who are willing to provide identity info for payment.
Lastly, retroactive support for builders is highly underrated, and it's just ethically right. Capital allocaters and givers get too caught up in incentivizing what they think should be the next thing. If someone has built freedom tech that works and is contributing to the cause, financially thanking them puts some great incentives into play in that they feel appreciated (a deep human need), they will feel incentivized to improve / maintain what they've built, and they will often feel motivated to build the next important thing that no one else has thought of yet.
You’re asking some of the right questions, and coming at this from a place of humility is a great approach.
cc LynAlden (npub1a2c…w83a)
I continue to think about this and the challenge is that it's much harder to profit from freedom tech (it's users are generally more anonymous and the software more freely distributed); centrally controlled systems are much easier to monetize and extract value from.
But it realistically costs time and money to build things, especially to build them well, so if funding is given it has to come from a place of idealism and hope with few strings, rather than from a place that is in search of investment multiples. Even grant money for FOSS tech in the bitcoin/nostr spaces is often tied to for-profit business models -- the nexus of venture and grant funding is a tricky place fraught with ethical pitfalls.
Just find capable people with proven track records who are building for the greater good and support them. The HRF (npub17xv…c9as) does this best as an organization IMHO (kudos to gladstein (npub1trr…hdpu) ck (npub1cf3…x7gk) et al). But also, personally dig in and really learn about projects that build freedom tech, and then give directly to the ones you think are doing important work. There are tons of high quality devs who work on freedom tech part time, or who flatly won't provide identity info for money. Direct donations reach these individuals whereas grants & bundled funds primarily target those working full time and who are willing to provide identity info for payment.
Lastly, retroactive support for builders is highly underrated, and it's just ethically right. Capital allocaters and givers get too caught up in incentivizing what they think should be the next thing. If someone has built freedom tech that works and is contributing to the cause, financially thanking them puts some great incentives into play in that they feel appreciated (a deep human need), they will feel incentivized to improve / maintain what they've built, and they will often feel motivated to build the next important thing that no one else has thought of yet.
You’re asking some of the right questions, and coming at this from a place of humility is a great approach.