Moss on Nostr: ODELL Gigi ⚡🧡 NVK OpenSats Opensats has a kind of arrogance and contempt for ...
ODELL (npub1qny…95gx) Gigi ⚡🧡 (npub1der…xzpc) NVK (npub1az9…m8y8) OpenSats (npub10pe…n34f) Opensats has a kind of arrogance and contempt for developers. The board of directors will not listen to any suggestions. The essence of the problem is that most of the Opensats board of directors and funds are part-time. They think they are doing public welfare work and don't owe anyone. The duties of Opensats are only a small part of their daily work. For Nostr developers who are in urgent need of development funds, the projects they develop are their everything. Opensats is the only source of funding for most Nostr developers.
They don't care about the long and inefficient project review time and the unfairness of the rules. They only need to donate a few well-known Nostr clients to shut everyone up. As long as Opensats can operate for a long time, it is a good and bright resume for them. They don't care whether Jack's funds can be used efficiently or whether Nostr can develop quickly. Nostr developers develop quickly after getting the funds quickly. This is also one of the reasons why Nostr develops slowly.
Many developers come because of jack (npub1sg6…f63m) 's call, because Jack has long-term funding for developers and is willing to continue to invest time and money in Nostr. But they will leave because of disappointment.
They don't care about the long and inefficient project review time and the unfairness of the rules. They only need to donate a few well-known Nostr clients to shut everyone up. As long as Opensats can operate for a long time, it is a good and bright resume for them. They don't care whether Jack's funds can be used efficiently or whether Nostr can develop quickly. Nostr developers develop quickly after getting the funds quickly. This is also one of the reasons why Nostr develops slowly.
Many developers come because of jack (npub1sg6…f63m) 's call, because Jack has long-term funding for developers and is willing to continue to invest time and money in Nostr. But they will leave because of disappointment.
quoting note1cgy…y3xyOne idea might be to pay one individual to run apps through an LLM to pre-screen for goal alignment and other criteria as decided by open sats. Assign scores to applications and create 2 lists - those that go forward to human review (much fewer numbers) and those that don’t meet the score threshold. But, instead of discarding them completely, pay a human to do a fast review of them to see if anything was overlooked. The application itself could probably be structured in a way that made the choices of what to green light much easier.
This saves on review time, shortlists the best prospects and gives the “losers” a chance to still make it.
The process would become more accurate and stronger the more the criteria is refine, resulting in better scoring.
I’d introduce acceptable timelines for review process and introduce perks for volunteers. This might motivate them to be more responsive and get applications reviewed faster. And if someone is falling behind, look for new volunteers who can commit more time. Emphasis of course would be on filtering out the noise so humans have more solid applications to look at. note13ha…9all