On 6/26/16, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika@yahoo.com> wrote:

... the most important part of that transcript IMO is the discussion about funding. Both Mike Perry and Jacob Appelbaum agreed in it that the current funding model "comprimises" the project (their word).

Why can't Tor use a funding model similar to Wikipedia?

Tor actually does have an individual donation component. Though it doesn't yet go into statistics about number and size distribution of transactions for each funding method, there's at least some level of breakout in the annual report and filings. Tor has an element of "can't teach old dog new tricks", or at least "we're moving, slowly..." the Tor dog has received a lot of "compromised" (from some minds or global perspectives) money. Some principals in tor grew up in certain spheres of work, for which say, writing proposals for, and getting, government grants, is what they're good at. Contracts bids are of course more one sided than bilateral interest work or grant requests. Public sector work / careers (Government, University) are just naturally that way. Others are good at courting large private foundations / NGOs, some of those not everyone would agree on either, and some possibly funded in turn by similar objectionables.

If you just stood up and said, "Help us get out of this Faustian bargain," the people and organizations that rely on your software would certainly help find a way to raise the money needed to support your work.

Maybe some of this needs to be thrown out to some sort of community approval model. Maybe a growing percentage moratorium on objectionables, and such a stand up announcement, is part of that. Some even say remove all the program outreach money to a separate entity. With other folks just coding for BTC. Balancing and transitioning is hard.

For better or for worse Tor is currently synonymous with online anonymity (or the best semblance of it available), in the same way Wikipedia is synonymous with online encyclopedia.

Maybe tor just got "lucky" here, who knows. One thing that should be thought about is any undue mass effect, and how to help other projects in the space [1] that are small or lack the above historically conjoined funding talent and sources, yet whose code, ideas, and papers are seen as important / competing work, or have been used by larger projects. Monopolies in any field are usually not a good thing, so you want to be quite careful about creating or sustaining them. And continually reevaluate, as a process, if what you're funding and coding is still worthy of your efforts. [1] Anon overlays, messaging, storage, crypto, activism, etc. [Sorry for subject change it didn't fit original of that blogger, and for gmail thread breakage.]