Nostr doesn't have an identity crisis, it is what it is, a tech protocol that came into being as a result of the increasingly one sidedness of mainstream of tech services (one-sided meaning against the interests of users). Using your percentages, it was always unrealistic imo to hope or expect any proportion of the 95% would move across to Nostr, simply because the 5% have felt this one-sidedness more acutely. This is why attempting to grow Nostr users was never going to work, it's simply not how people make decisions, which I think your comment supports. However, it will be interesting to see how the 95% will respond in the future as the ever increasing one-sidedness in the mainstream services continues, which would appear to be what is happening.

Has anyone heard of or used a Private Irrevocable Trust? https://www.notaperson.org

Love this...

In the short/medium term would some form of relationship with be beneficial? OpenSats could recommend #grantless to all applications they were unable to fund. They could even act as an Arbiter for selected projects they are unable to fund, but still wish to succeed. If are truly interested in the Nostr ecosystem and growth this would seem like a no brainer, so long as your processes are clear and robust. (Also probably a good idea to clarify some of the questions asked in the comments before making any approach.)

It is not possible to implement a growth strategy on a decentralised protocol like nostr. However well intentioned it may have felt, giving grants to selected projects is an attempt to select the winners, which has the effect of stifling and disincentivising open competition by raising the barriers to entry. Clearly as a core donor to the project, was and is aware of this yet it seems to have happened anyway albeit with predictable results. Maybe it felt like a risk worth taking or no risk at all. Two questions: What will the representatives of Opensats, who have openly acknowledged that their efforts have not improved adoption, learn from the recent disagreements and will this lead to any change in their strategy? Will the representatives of Opensats see that their recent online comments have served to damage their professional credibility in respect of the privileged positions they hold and of the organisation they represent? Final thought: Disagreement is an important and crucial aspect of determining which apps/services/tools will survive and should be treated as a positive, no matter how fractious. Recent examples are therefore healthy and should be welcomed. Disagreement >> Heat >> Change

It isn't possible to implement a growth strategy on a decentralised protocol. Bitcoin did not start this way. However well intentioned it may have felt to the Directors of the project, they have now realised that giving money as grants to select projects is an act of choosing the winners, which ultimately stifles & disincentivises open competition by raising the barriers to entry. While clearly is wise to this, somehow it happened anyway. Two questions: The Directors of have acknowledged that grants have not had the desired effect of kick starting nostr adoption or growth, what will they learn from this and how will this affect future decision making? Will the representatives of see that their online comments have served to undermined their personal professional credibility in respect of the privileged positions they hold and of the organisation itself? Final comment: While disagreements are an important and essential aspect of determining which apps/services/tools will survive, nostr itself will not be diminished by disagreement, past, present or future, but only strengthened.

Firstly, considering demographics, can we be sure this is an achievable policy, and nor can governments force people to own a mobile phone. The policy will rely on population apathy/compliance to be successful and like any government system it will be full of exceptions (holes) which hopefully more and more of the people will choose to exploit.

all things simple are generally underrated, but who gives a fuck, it's not me who's missing out.

We can disagree about things but that shouldn't stop us focusing on what's important to us, nor should we need to stop others focusing on what is important to them.