~hyperlinks

> what's blocking it?

Bystander effects and free riding, which are functions of scale. But, at scale, it's (probably) relatively safe to have nonprofits augmenting other forms of participation.

imo Bitcoin can survive its nonprofits disappearing which limits their power and makes them less pathogenic and net good.

k00b

private companies are a dagger without a cloak.

This is a great description. And it definitely rings true. But oddly enough, I think the perception of these things in general society is that private enterprises are more pathogenic than non-profits.

Also, (though I may have already provided an answer to my own question here) I wonder why so much of nostr/bitcoin development has trended towards non-profits and foundations.

 on earlier this week for the AMA, he mentioned that there had been a bit more private company funding of development earlier in Bitcoin's history. It doesn't seem to be very popular now. what's blocking it?

nostr

When fighting dogs meet

npub1zapsats

> private companies are a dagger without a cloak.

This is a great description. And it definitely rings true. But oddly enough, I think the perception of these things in general society is that private enterprises are more pathogenic than non-profits. 

Also, (though I may have already provided an answer to my own question here) I wonder why so much of nostr/bitcoin development has trended towards non-profits and foundations.

When we had @schmidty on earlier this week for the AMA, he mentioned that there had been a bit more private company funding of development earlier in Bitcoin's history. It doesn't seem to be very popular now. what's blocking it?