Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 109 posts

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#71

Post by jacquesm »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #13
murillians wrote: post #3

I think this submission should be re-titled. From the post, it seems that the author voluntarily declined funding from FLOSS/Fund because they "don't trust them, nor the India government, with processing and storing personal sensitive data"

I think it shouldn't. The funding source was dropped by Github, and the terms Pocketbase accepted for funding include being paid through Github by FLOSS Fund. FLOSS Fund refused to follow the regulatory requirements to continue funding projects through Github, and Github dropped them as a funding source. What the Pocketbase maintainer decided was to drop FLOSS Fund after they tried to renegotiate the contract in dang…

That's not 'dangerous and unethical' by the normal standards of funding application. Sure, it's not a huge amount of money. But almost every fund has some paperwork requirements and most of them are a lot more onerous than this one.

Funds don't operate outside the legal framework, they are well within it and are expected to show their paperwork at the drop of a hat to any auditor that comes knocking. If they just wired sums that are at or near the reporting requirement to any callers they'd be in pretty hot water.

I've had an AML check for the grand sum of 900 euros once.

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#72

Post by nirava »

ExpertAdvisor01 wrote: post #48

These are very reasonable requirements . These are just the requirements to claim treaty benefits . A little bit of research wouldn't hurt. You have to fill out the Form-10f to claim treaty benefits for the reduction of withholding tax on services and royalties . These are the requirements: Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) (= extract from cantonal commercial register) • Non-Permanent Establishment Declaration (No PE D…

> These are very reasonable requirements

Sure, but they weren't the original requirements under which he accepted the funds. He accepted the funds assuming GitHub was going to be the mediator.

The new requirements require him to disclose significantly more information about himself. Maybe he isn't comfortable doing that? I wouldn't call it unprofessional.

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#73

Post by nirava »

anpat wrote: post #37

The conversation in comments seem to devolving in weird ways. The OP (and others) have right to opinions but I see bunch of projects having successfully received their grants https://floss.fund/projects/2025 . OpenSSL and Krita being the prominent ones that I recognize. Calling the fund dangerous and unethical when they personally have zero control over regulations seems over the top to me.

I agree. Coming from a neighboring country with similarly strict rules on outgoing dollars, I've had many situations where sending money outside of the country, even for business purposes required an insane amount of paperwork, bureaucracy and sometimes bribery.

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#74

Post by overfeed »

reenorap wrote: post #65
fdefitte wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

This is false. I just did an international wire transfer a few weeks ago with no KYC.

The War on Terror Financing(tm) made KYC-less transfers using formal banking systems well nigh impossible. Your transaction was covered by past KYC (by your financial institution).

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#75

Post by throwaway150 »

nirava wrote: post #72
ExpertAdvisor01 wrote: post #48

These are very reasonable requirements . These are just the requirements to claim treaty benefits . A little bit of research wouldn't hurt. You have to fill out the Form-10f to claim treaty benefits for the reduction of withholding tax on services and royalties . These are the requirements: Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) (= extract from cantonal commercial register) • Non-Permanent Establishment Declaration (No PE D…

> These are very reasonable requirements Sure, but they weren't the original requirements under which he accepted the funds. He accepted the funds assuming GitHub was going to be the mediator. The new requirements require him to disclose significantly more information about himself. Maybe he isn't comfortable doing that? I wouldn't call it unprofessional.

Exactly. I don't understand why so many people think the maintainer has some obligation to accept the funds even when they aren't comfortable doing so. The terms of engagement changed. The decision changed. If they want to forgo the money, they have every right to forego the money.

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#78

Post by devanampiya »

bogzz wrote: post #14

Such a shame. I so love Pocketbase, used it when I was trying out HTMX for a side project. I get the sense that ganigeorgiev is feeling the thanklessness of open source work, and I so wish that he had an easier time of it. That said, it's a shame that a FLOSS fund being based in India is reason enough for it to be avoided. Like, I understand that Indians might be overrepresented in the scam space right now, but avoid…

NO, It is no INSULT to India at all. Present regime even has problem using the term "INDIA" for the country, if you observe they are representing it in political / non-political spaces as "Bharat" at least inside India. They don't have guts doing the same in international platform. For Indians living outside a very Rosy picture of India is portrayed. People living in India know that, instead of REAL WORK that is supposed to happen for prosperity of country & it's people, they are just managing the show with propoganda machine & media. India will go into deep pits ( Paathaalam ) as long as this regime continues.

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#79

Post by reenorap »

jacquesm wrote: post #68
reenorap wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false. I just did an international wire transfer a few weeks ago with no KYC.

Right, so you think. But: your bank knows who you are and the recipient's bank knows who they are. Your transfer may have been below the increased attention threshold ($10K to $50K depending on the jurisdictions of both recipients). Both your accounts are most likely not recent and in good standing. And so on. I routinely make international wiretransfers as well but I'm under no illusion whatsoever that if I tried to…

Right but presumably the OP had an existing bank account. You can't wire money into thin air. Assuming OP is a regular person with a regular bank account, then further KYC isn't necessary. KYC for every international wire transfer is in fact not true at all, only for the edge case where a person wants to receive money and he has no existing account to transfer it in.

Re: Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

#80

Post by jacquesm »

reenorap wrote: post #79
jacquesm wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so you think. But: your bank knows who you are and the recipient's bank knows who they are. Your transfer may have been below the increased attention threshold ($10K to $50K depending on the jurisdictions of both recipients). Both your accounts are most likely not recent and in good standing. And so on. I routinely make international wiretransfers as well but I'm under no illusion whatsoever that if I tried to…

Right but presumably the OP had an existing bank account. You can't wire money into thin air. Assuming OP is a regular person with a regular bank account, then further KYC isn't necessary. KYC for every international wire transfer is in fact not true at all, only for the edge case where a person wants to receive money and he has no existing account to transfer it in.

You can't just transfer money to a person that has no account. That's not an 'edge case' that just isn't how it works unless you want to use WU or something similar and even they have strict KYC requirements for larger sums.

If you want to move large amounts of money outside of the regular financial networks and oversight it is possible but (1) it will cost you (2) you will be breaking the law and (3) you may cause others to be breaking the law. Bitcoin would be one way to do it but even that is not nearly as anonymous as most of its users believe.

Banking is a regulated industry for a reason. There was a period (roughly until 2001, guess why) when banks were willing and able to bend the rules depending on who the customer was and how much money was involved. Those banks that continued to do this post 2001 have - if they're located in the West at least - had their ears bent in ways that they did not like one bit and even the Swiss now play ball.

Cash is becoming harder to use and harder to get. Money will most likely go digital in the West soon, the various governments don't like the unauditable and untaxable money streams that cash provides.

Post reply on HN