Re: Funding model question — unpaid exploratory work at intake

He notes a common expectation among grant administrators that preliminary work, including project outlining and scoping, should be carried out without compensation. This practice raises concerns about the sustainability and fairness of such an approach for contributors seeking grants. Nic questions how this model impacts the willingness of talented individuals to contribute and suggests it may lead to a bias in selection, wasted efforts by contributors, and less thorough proposals due to the absence of initial compensatory support.

Chris Stewart contributes to the conversation by sharing his experience working on proposals for enhancing Bitcoin through soft-fork implementations. He advocates for a modular approach to designing soft forks, where small, reusable components are funded and developed to be part of larger updates. Chris highlights his work on 64-bit arithmetic and amount locks as examples of initiatives that could benefit from this strategy. By breaking down larger proposals into smaller, independent pieces, he believes that funding can be more effectively allocated, and the development process can become more efficient and impactful.

Chris outlines a structured milestone system for funding such projects, suggesting disbursement of funds upon completion of specific objectives. These milestones range from implementing the proposal in a programming language to integrating the proposal into the latest Bitcoin Core release with test cases. He also emphasizes the importance of validating these smaller components within the scope of larger soft-fork proposals. Through this method, Chris argues, the Bitcoin community can foster innovation and ensure that funded work delivers tangible benefits to the ecosystem.

The exchange between Nic and Chris sheds light on potential improvements to funding models in the open-source and Bitcoin communities. While Nic critiques the expectation of unpaid preparatory work, Chris offers a practical framework for supporting and advancing technical contributions through targeted grants and a focus on modular, reusable components. Their dialogue underscores the need for a balanced funding model that encourages robust participation and recognizes the value of early-stage intellectual contributions.