beautyon on Nostr: “a gift that is *connected to or associated at any point in time* with receiving ...

“a gift that is *connected to or associated at any point in time* with receiving digital content or services must use in-app purchase”

This means when users start saying “zap me with your email to receive my art”. Then this would give apple an excuse remove Damus at any time, even with only profile zaps. This is true of every p2p payment app as well from what I can tell.

Not to mention: “100% of the funds go to the receiver of the gift”. So what about miner fees? Apple could argue miner tx fees on bitcoin txs violate their guidelines. This also means damus splits + support star are very much not allowed and they won’t be pushed to the app store 🥲

Overall everything is very vague which gives apple the ability to remove your app for any reason. Fun

This is not true.

What it actually means s that in the TOS, you need to specify exactly what the context of a Zap is; that it is a mere gift, and is in no way to be construed as payment for anything whatsoever. That should be enough to be compliant with this Apple Rule.

Users are at liberty to use Damus for whatever they want, even for purposes outside of the Damus TOS. Apple is concerned only with what the incorporation that owns Damus (is there even one?) is doing in its relationship with its users, not the private arrangements users make between themselvs.

Furthermore, the fact that mining taks place for a fee cannot (and probably won’t) be construed as anything to do with the act of sending a Zap. This is like saying Apple will claim that because you pay for ISP/Cellphone service fees, or monthly payment on your phone, or electricity, with a credit card that charges you a fee, that using Bitcoin is, “A violation of their guidelines”. Clearly this is totally absurd, and would mean that the other payment methods which certainly attract fees to get things done, would fall afoul of Apple’s rules meaning that their language makes no sense.

The guideline is this; don’t put on the layer’s hat unless you’re a lawyer or have experience in interpreting a TOS and its terms. If you don’t have a lawyer, get one. No, ChatGPT cannot act as your lawyer. If you’re serious about launching and running a world changing app, and you’ve been funded, you really should have a competent, high power law firm with many international offices and with expertise in this area at your disposal. And NO the EFF is not good enough.