Handshake Donates $300k to Debian
debian.org
debian.org
Sure you could give a few dollars here, and there but when the shit hits the fan, hes gonna wish he had those dollars over of eating the family pet, or leather accessories.
Handshake's security audit was also done by Zcash. If you look in the project info, they list all the info there.
US$300k seems like it'll fund roughly 1 proper man-year while covering indirect costs and effectively zero profit margin.
[2] https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Funding
The back of the napkin $100 x 40 x 50 == $200k w2 salary is misleading. Aside from self employment tax, needed liability insurance, no health insurance subsidy, no 401k match, etc...depending on location, you can also be subject to franchise taxes, etc. And most people making $200k as a salary don't work 50 weeks a year.
The health insurance subsidies alone, at a good company, are often worth $12k+/year, for example.
Raphael's monthly reports[1] were very insightful and explains why equivalent billing rate seems anecdotally low.
Edit: after thinking about it, my comment is unfounded and probably nonsense.
My remarks assumed a rough US national average. The enterprise billing rate for top SV talent certainly exceeds ~$144/hr.
So I have to admit my comment doesn't make much sense.
My estimate was based on 2080 hrs/yr; indirect costs such as insurance coverage, paid annual/sick leave, 401(k) matching, and operating costs that one might associate with a large software distribution.
Probably worth noting that the average freelancer bills a lot lower than typical for-profit enterprise.
When I first learned what my employer charges for 1 hour of my time, I was shocked and had to completely retool how I thought about these things...and that was knowing beforehand that, by law, we're not allowed to profit, and management had artificially lowered the engineering rate 2 years in row to make up for inefficiencies on the production side, keeping the organization competitive as a whole.
The mission is usually a big boost to your morale and engagement, but it's not the same for everyone.
Our branch's projects manifest when: 1) data rights are on lockdown and can't legally be distributed; 2) data is limited, making acquisition risk too high; or 3) bids from the private sector far exceed what acquisition estimates suggest they should reasonably be. In general, these constraints tend to keep things both interesting and challenging.
Blockchain is the perfect protocol for DNS since it's totally transparent and establishes consensus without blind trust.
Names and identities are always relative to a (tree of) policy and decentralization of control means that ultimately the root is you. Blockchains (quite well-defined by handshake actually, as crypto-financially incentivized strong consensus) take the incompatible route of making statements public and permanent (instead of gated and amendable) and conflating abstract protocol with concrete network (eg imposing a distinguished core policy). Blockchains may be participatory but they are totalitarian and authoritarian, they deny the possibility of local independence. It's "either you are us or you don't exist". It's authoritarian in the same way android permissions are (or were, i don't recall the specifics): either you accept all we ask or you don't install. There is no room for negotiation since the whole thing works as a monolithic black box and treats you as an outsider/client/consumer.
I believe a core property for a decentralized naming protocol should be to stop trying to construct trust anchors and concrete network. Fluctuations and definitions of these trust anchors cannot be governed by tech, they will come out of meetings, social circles, interests, beliefs. As such the system should encourage that out-of-band behavior and make it easy to have the system controlled by the real-life status of these anchors and the scope of the networks.
[1] A Censorship-Resistant, Privacy-Enhancing and Fully Decentralized Name System. Matthias Wachs, Martin Schanzenbach, Christian Grothoff.