Hi all,
Reposting from the subscribed address — apologies for the earlier bounce. Now that I’m properly subscribed, I wanted to repost the question with a brief, self-contained summary to avoid wasting anyone’s time. *Summary of the situation* I’ve been speaking with a few Bitcoin-adjacent grant administrators about whether *paid exploratory work / experiment framing at intake* is considered acceptable within open-source funding models. The consistent response I received was that exploratory framing at intake is *unpaid by definition* — funding decisions are made only after work is already scoped, framed, or partially completed by the applicant. That raised a broader design question for me, independent of any single organization: *The question* • Is expecting unpaid exploratory framing at intake a sane and sustainable grants model for open-source ecosystems? • What incentive failures does this create (e.g., selection bias, wasted contributor time, shallow proposals)? • Are there alternative structures that fairly price early judgment without turning grants into VC or bounties? I’m not asking any org to defend itself here, and no one involved needs to reply. I’m genuinely interested in how people with long experience in Bitcoin and open-source view this trade-off. Any perspective — supportive or critical — is appreciated. Best, Nic -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAO-13RDhh4CSG3DBFjU0wrOt%2Bh18_oFHNQHEJKL1nPj0VL-2Dw%40mail.gmail.com.
