An immodest proposal
It is grant season again, and – as every grant season – there is some cheering, some complaining, and much bewilderment, as the grants are announced and monies are dispersed.
I’m mostly a bystander to this spectacle, but it’s impossible to ignore it, or to not become emotionally entangled in the general circus of it, so I’ve decided to write about it – again – as it is effecting me and interrupting my own efforts – again.
What I’m about to suggest here is something that has never been done before (at least, not on a grant system of this scale), but it’s always easy to criticize, whine, or fall into conspiracy-theorizing, so I’ve decided to try something more constructive and propose a solution.
The Five Whys
Why do some projects get turned down for grants?
Why do some people receive grants over and over and over?
Why do others refuse to apply for grants?
Why is an enormous amount of money being spent, but nobody knows how much is left over?
Why is it not really clear who is receiving what?
Why, why, why?!
Doctor, heal thyself!
Leaving this many whys lying around, or responding to them defensively or with small information-leaks, is an open communication fail on our open communication protocol.
We don’t really have the excuse of not knowing how to communicate transparently and publicly, since that is our professional specialty. If we can’t figure out how to run a grant program in the most continuously innovative and traceable way possible, even though we are a collection of some of the most talented perpetual innovators on the planet, then who can?
We are all process engineers, so let’s engineer our own processes.
The application process
The main problem with the grant application process is that there is a grant application process. There shouldn’t be. Everyone who is working in our space is working transparently, actively marketing their ideas, and everything they do is a matter of public record.
We know who the builders are. We know what they are doing. We can interact with them about what they are doing. We can turn on our computers, pull out some popcorn, and entertain ourselves all day, every day, just watching them labour and think aloud and debate, and fork various repositories or Nostr notes.
There is, at most, a loss of information, as there are so many people working on so many things, that it can become difficult to even track one particular person. That means it is not too much for us to ask, to suggest that anyone interested in a grant at least make their interest known in some small way.
Wave if you want a grant
That way should be as small as possible. Tiny. Ideally, they shouldn’t even have to go that way themself; others should be able to nominate them. A 10-minute barrier to entry is already high, if it requires some formal, explicit act of supplication.
Does that sound silly to you? Then you do not understand how profoundly logical, forward-thinking, and diligent software developers can be. If they “just fill out a form” and/or “have an informal discussion”, in order to receive money, it smacks disturbingly of “job interview” and “contract”. These are people for whom contract law is holy law, so many will agonize over the decision.
Some already have a job and they don’t know how it will be in the future. What if they have to work overtime?
Or they have a family and worry that they can’t promise to deliver within some particular time. The wife could get pregnant, the baby could get sick, they might have to move house.
Maybe they are students and exam time is approaching. Or they are simply shy or very young, and therefore reluctant to be seen “tooting their own horn”. There is probably someone more worthy, and they are taking away the money he would get.
Maybe they were hit with such an inner building passion that they hacked the whole implementation out their last vacation and… well… it’s now already there. Everyone is already using it. Darn. Why apply for a grant, for something you’ve already finished? Seems sort of silly. Is that even allowed? What are the grants even for?
What if they already have such a well-publicized project, that everyone is already watching them and keeping tabs? Then it’s embarrassing to apply, on a lark, and get turned down. But if they don’t apply, then everyone encourages them to apply. What to do?
Many prefer to keep their head down and keep building, for months or years at a time, and clap politely when others are awarded a grant. In fact, they happily zap the recipients and then go right back to building and releasing. They’re often grateful to just bathe in other people’s joy, by proxy, while they stack sats and stay humble and keep coding.
That is why a large subset of potential grant recipients never even apply. That is also why those who have received a grant are less reluctant to apply for another. Successful application breeds successful application. The emotional barrier to entry has fallen. To those that have, shall be given.
Let’s use Nostr to run Nostr grants
We should turn the tables around completely. We want the developers to keep developing, not jumping through hoops. We don’t want them to be distracted and internally torn over the ethics of requesting funding. We don’t want them to be afraid to apply for grants or be mystified by the grant-giving process, or be humiliated or frustrated by a declined grant.
Let us come up with very clear, understandable criteria for rewarding grants, write them down, and publish them on Nostr Wiki. Accept comments and critiques of the criteria. After every round of grants, we should review the criteria, suggest improvements, and publish the new version in the same place.
Let every application be judged according to this criteria and the results should be published after every round. The results should include a rating for each criteria and (if the grant is given) the amount of the grant awarded or (if the grant is declined) the reasons for the decline and what the applicant can improve to have a better chance of receiving a grant in the future.
Ideally, no applicant should walk away from a declined grant feeling hopeless or slighted. Every applicant should feel like the grant process gave them valuable feedback on their own efforts and expert guidance on what they should maybe focus more on.
Every application should be a standing application that has to be explicitly removed from the list by the person listed as an applicant. Anything not removed automatically enters the next round. If there is no further development on the project, then the application should be paused and removed after 2 rounds of being paused.
The application process should consist of adding yourself or someone else to a Wiki Grant Application List and linking to some documentation of the project. Any npub that trolls or spams the list should be prohibited from further contribution. The quality and completeness of that documentation should be a factor in grant acceptance.
Grant decisions should include a “handicap” (like in golf), that take into account how Nostr-experienced the applicant is and how easy it was for them to add a new implementation to some already-existing system. The tendency should be to award newer applicants such grants, with more-experienced applicants competing for long-term funding or being offered a paid(!) place on the grant board, but not both.
Each grant round should be proceeded by a grant scope declaration (we shall be awarding X number of grants with an average of X Bitcoin per grant) accompanied by a funding overview and update (How much money was collected since the last round? How much did we spend? How much do we have now? etc.).
Okay, this is just a prototype
I’m sure that I’m going to be bombarded with naysayers, critics, and people who think I am “writing above my pay grade”, but I wouldn’t be me if I let that daunt me.
All I am trying to do is change the discussion into one focused on uncovering the grant problems and offering grant solutions, rather than debates about whether some particular person was grant-worthy, or long rants on some particular person’s real motives.
It’s a lot of Real Money. It’s worth talking about, but it’s not worth fighting over. Let’s talk.