The barrier to entry to create an org like OpenSats isn't trivial. Forming a non-profit, creating a board, and running it take time commitments. I think part of the permissioned aspect is that if you are gonna be a part of one of these you don't really want that work to go to projects that you believe are not needed or are bad for the ecosystem. But as you say this invites criticism.
Bitcoin is that permissionless system though. I used to have this argument years ago with people about putting comments on my blog. I didn't wanna deal with it. It wasn't worth it to me. My response was always go create your own web site and comment there. I don't owe you anything just as you don't owe me anything.
That's how I feel about OpenSats. I don't wanna start something like that. I know how much work it is. If I look at it and see I don't like what they are doing I just don't support them with my money.
Decentralization isn't always good. I can sure tell you I'm not decentralizing the operating of my home for example. But centralizing things that have control. That I have an issue with. Things like OpenSats are voluntary. I'd love to see more orgs like OpenSats that would try to do things the way they think they should be done.
reply
Yeah, I hear that and yet there is a clear value in these giving orgs. The biggest is being able to reduce the amount of wealth taken by the state and used to kill people. I know people hate taxes because it is theft. But when you stop and think about all the evil being done with that money and the money being pissed away, it makes one want to avoid the state getting any of it.
On the transparency side, there is always a tradeoff on transparency. To much and to little both cause issues. I do think many of these people that seem to hate OpenSats can't be appeased. That's my sense at least.
Democracy never!
reply
Footnotes