Oh Odell.

The American gov't has been killing innocent Venezuelan fishermen for months, leading to this.

Julian Assange filed a criminal complaint over the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, poised to take over the new gov't. She has actively and publicly supported Trump’s attacks to remove Maduro and assume power. She has also backed attacks on Palestinians.

It’s been going on for a while.

US has a long history of intervention through opposition leaders, military force, coups, covert CIA operations, economic pressure, and diplomatic coercion across the Global South, all to protect its economic interests.

This was a template move.

There are many narratives depending on which convinces you to justify this act, just pick one. Drugs. Peace. Liberation. Socialism. China etc etc. It worked during the Cold War. In today’s information era, the world sees right through it and people are pissed.

If the American gov’t put the same effort into developing real competence at home, things would look very different. You don’t need to steal another country's oil and minerals.

I’m afraid America still doesn’t get how strong the world is without it. European gov’t are just as weak, that’s what happens when you take away their financial sovereignty. Today, if the Eastern world or the Global South strikes back, leadership could flip but they are choosing peace, calm, and respect for international law.

What troubles me is the disconnect between advocating for Bitcoin and individual sovereignty while ignoring how state power systematically undermines the sovereignty of other nations.

Wanna liberate people? Empower them to build and defend their own systems, not coerce them from the outside.

Patents are meant to protect innovation, but often they do more harm than good.

In 2011, Google bought Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion to shield Android from lawsuits by Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle. Once the job was done, it sold Motorola to Lenovo for $2.91 billion. Motorola’s innovation legacy was never revived.

And out of 17,000 patents, only 18 were used. The rest just sat there. Meanwhile, companies like Qualcomm and Samsung faced 9,423 IP rejections. The unused patents blocked progress in the telco industry.

For smaller players, innovation becomes expensive or impossible due to licensing fees or legal risks.

Patents create dominant players who control entire markets. They block competition and stall progress. Even something as small as a connector design can shut out small builders. And if those patents are buried in some corporate junk drawer, they can hold back entire industries.

China does the opposite.

Although the maker culture started in the U.S., it thrives in China. Cities like Shenzhen and Guangzhou are global prototyping hubs where entrepreneurs build custom devices with low friction and high creativity. In the U.S. the models are operating out of fear and protectionism. If the U.S. wants to compete, it needs to let creativity, imagination, and innovation thrive without drama.

The irony is not lost on me that one system empowers its people to build freely, the other seems to question their ability to innovate.

Before Tesla came about, GM and Ford were early movers in the EV industry but could not scale so they halted it. A few years later, Elon comes around, he understood that a fast-growing EV ecosystem would benefit everyone. A global hardware supply chain cannot thrive with one player alone. By open-sourcing Tesla's patents, he flipped the traditional approach, built the ecosystem, and ultimately led the market.

Can Open Source Win? It already has. Jack and Elon prove it everyday.
So do other billion-dollar open-source companies like Red Hat, MongoDB, and Redis Labs who hold it on their own as they go against big tech players Oracle, Microsoft, and Google. The power of open communities and network effects is real.

If the U.S. wants an innovation-driven economy, it has to let go of the fear of being copied. Hoarding IP has slowed it down. Sharing might just move it forward.


@nevent1qvz...

Facts vs. Truth
One is objective. The other is personal.

Nice vs. Kind
One avoids pain. The other risks it to help.

Being Right vs. Being Successful
Being right wins the argument. Being successful wins the outcome.

Encouragement vs. Flattery
Encouragement is rooted in truth. Flattery is rooted in manipulation.

Intelligence vs. Wisdom
Intelligence knows what to say. Wisdom knows when or whether to say it.

Love vs. Attachment
Love gives freedom. Attachment destroys it.

Honesty vs. Transparency
Honesty tells the truth when asked. Transparency tells it without being asked.

Confidence vs. Arrogance
Confidence is based on self-awareness. Arrogance is based on insecurity.

Vision vs. Control
Vision invites people forward. Control pulls them back.

Being Liked vs. Being Respected
Being liked wins moments. Being respected wins missions.

Agreement vs. Alignment
Agreement is consensus. Alignment is commitment.

Roles vs. Value
Roles define responsibility. Value defines impact.

Invention vs. Innovation
Invention creates something new. Innovation makes it useful.

Art vs. Aesthetic
Aesthetic pleases the eye. Art moves the soul.

Inspiration vs. Discipline
Inspiration gets you started. Discipline keeps you going.

It’s better to be a pirate than to join the navy.
- Steve Jobs,1983

Hey Will,

An alternative option is to look at equity funding, by selling your shares to your users, instead of a VC.

This is called equity crowdfunding. Say you need to raise $1M in exchange for 20% . Reach out to 100 users who can put in $10k each for a fraction of your company. You will create a new company for this.

* Company A remains as Damus - funded by grants.
Damus is a people attracting magnet. 100% open source. No Ads. No VCs.

* Company B - Here, you can create a separate entity purely for the business/productivity suite or a valuable “other stuff” that the market needs. Single/dual class share. This will have equity investors, starting with the 100 angels for seed investment.

**Under company B**

1. Open source at least 50% , until you can build the branding and market penetration. It will eventually become 100% open source

2. Outsource marketing and design as separate cluster entities (like how design is independent - this could work the same for PR, for marketing).

Its a modular technique - what it does is, it removes a lot of operating expenses esp at early stages and your gross will be closer to net profit - this is a massive investor attraction.

3. Work with your 100 investors - for every person your investor brings into your productivity suite, investors earn sales commission on top of the investment returns.

Early investors who are your users and fans of Damus will be very interested in making this business profitable. Imagine having 100 sales arms if you get 100 investors.

4. You need to work on branding, strategy and growth. After a while, maybe in a year, whether it is patented or open source will become irrelevant (99% of the time) once branding picks up. This is the same everywhere, all the time.

5. The $1M fund is your seed funds. Company B can eventually fund raise Series A through VCs if you want to, because you will have strong revenue. Your 100 investors can sell their shares at higher value or remain.

Most importantly, Damus is standalone - undisturbed - no center point of failure. Maybe Damus purple can have exclusive access to certain things that other people can’t have in company B etc

That's one possibility

There are many ways and many solutions, let your creativity go wild. You are a smart guy. You can even create some form of smart contract for these types of investment, gather investor input etc, it will be another new innovation for you.

The options are endless. Problems = solutions = opportunity.

** Some thoughts :

1. No matter what you build, make sure the market wants it. You can spend shit loads of effort building it and it will go nowhere if market doesn't want it.

2. Identify target market - where are you going to find the first 100 users for your new innovation ? First 1000 users?

3. Open source entrepreneurship is diff from traditional entrepreneurship.

If you can make open source entrepreneurship work successfully, then you would be a pioneer who has set up an open source entrepreneurship network.

** On a personal note,

1. Passive aggressiveness is a put off. Channel your good people energy in attracting people, not dividing them

2. @npub1sg6pl... is the good guy. He welcomed you to his home, he funded the initiative, he has supported you from the get go, he has been here lifting everyone up. I hope you didn't burn the bridge entirely and can still make amends.

3. You can take the pisser on Miljan over his VC funding. Someone else can take a pisser on you on your first mover advantage. Negativity breeds negativity. OR - You can build solutions that can solve your problems and everyone else's problems


** On an additional note

I did a brief cap table for you . If you raise $1M for 20%, your company post valuation would be 5M, assuming 1.5 years is a good enough time to develop, sell, get user feedback, rinse and repeat until product is a bit stable.

And once you raise in 1.5 years at series A, your 100 investors could see a 9x return.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bsouYOU1quGIDxdi6TGX-rVPZfBIzbQTNKz0eaifIgk/edit

I hope this helps you move forward and on a positive path.

Good luck

I gave away my heavy machinery to small local business owners as I migrate manufacturing out of the country. I chose not to sell it because these small businesses are really poor and struggling.

Ironically while engaging in high volume production here, it was also a period I encountered extreme racism.

Because the economy of the country was divided by race, there is reluctance to work with other races. You don’t see this in MNCs as foreign-based companies have their own culture and policies, nor do you see it in customer-based businesses in urban environments - but you would see it everywhere else.

For us, they hiked up the cost price 3x more, and it was a take it or leave it scenario. They would ask for cash payment because they would tell upfront they don’t trust your race. They would call derogatory names (i didn't even know some of these names until then). They would delay production, often the supplies would be ruined and I’ll have to buy more.

Once a maker refused to release the products unless I paid more and my friend of the same race stepped in to help speak the same language. I remember all the stuff was scattered on the floor and we had to pick it up one by one. I have hardened myself to ignore it all, but when my young local employee asked why we were begging this way, it broke my heart.

Over time manufacturing became really difficult. Covid19 lockdown shutdown most traditional small business and skill workers opted for gig economy to survive and I opted to migrate manufacturing. It has been a positive choice so far but requires funds and one reason why I take on many jobs (and I’m glad I am overcoming this on my own, rather than to beg).

The other bit of race-based economy in my country is that most financial facilities are allocated for the majorities, as affirmative action is for the majorities, not minorities. Openly seeking merits is a sensitive issue and one that can trigger “racial disharmony” and send you to prison.

There is racial quota of <5% for minorities. Ironically, when I walked into one of the agencies that manages the race I am boxed into, I was disqualified because I don’t look the same, practice the same culture nor speak the same language.

As I gave away the machines, these cost in thousands, the makers came in their old van humming loud noises. I can see bags of aluminum cans they collect to recycle for extra money as they open their van doors. They themselves are old. There were a lot of mixed emotions in them as they picked up the machines. I helped them carry it, gave them food and water and we didn’t talk about the past.

If there is one thing I’ve learnt, being treated like normal despite all the shortcomings, is rare and precious.

I did however tell them that the country I'm moving manufacturing to, digitizes a lot of things. Locally, 90% of small manufacturers do not have digital penetration here.

I hinted at Bitcoin i.e. “the money without exchange currencies where banks and govt won’t come after you” and they were excited. They are so old that they used to go to agents to exchange money for import/export business transactions. I don’t even know what that means and here I am bitching about banks.

I am nym here for my own safety, but feeling so much of emotions today and sharing this little part of me. These racism are only a fraction of what I’ve encountered. And all the more I feel why it’s so important for me to never treat someone else, as lowly I was made to feel

Maybe someday, like how the internet increased global exposure to people from undeserved communities to see what’s beyond them, I hope Bitcoin opens up global exposure to small businesses.

To see past their own limiting ideologies - because oftentimes, this is their biggest barrier.

There are those who wait for opportunity to land on their feet, and complain when it doesn’t. And then there are those who seize every moment, knock on doors, build new doors, make things happen because any opportunity at all is rare.

Interesting piece on fast fashion - and something I feel strongly against.

Every year from US alone, 85% of all textiles are discarded which amounts to ~ 11 million tons of textile waste that often ends up in landfills in Africa and South America. These clothes typically made from synthetic materials like polyester and nylon (fossil fuels) hence can take centuries to decompose.

Cheap labours are mostly found in South East Asia and South Asia but given the cost of a clothing (raw material + import + labour) for fast fashion can be as low as 10% of retail price hence wage is devastatingly low.

From a business sense fashion has always been a top down approach from high end consumers but fast fashion exploded among the mid market consumers and started controlling the fashion industry.

Fast fashion business is a $1.7 trillion industry which is why investors still rush into dumping their money. But the damage is detrimental. Clothing stores like Zara and Shein change their fashion style every 2 weeks leading to extreme high wastage.

One way to go about overcoming fast fashion is innovating interchangeable usages. Another way is to explore nature based vegan and clean tech. Plastics like ABS can be recycled. Advancing 3D manufacturing can improve made to order and reduce wastage of inventory

What the fashion industry clearly lacks at large is technology penetration

@nostrich