[HN Gopher] New Year, New CEO
___________________________________________________________________
New Year, New CEO
Author : 0xedb
Score : 508 points
Date : 2022-01-10 19:15 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (signal.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (signal.org)
| kbenson wrote:
| This post, and how it explains that there's 30 people working
| there now, made me realize that if I care about signal continuing
| (and I do, since I really like it, especially that it has a
| dedicated desktop client), that I should see how it makes money
| and whether that's sustainable. Turns out it's donations, and now
| I'm a donor through monthly charges through the mobile app. I
| actually opted for that specifically because their web site noted
| that they can't give you a badge in the app if you donate online,
| and I thought showing the badge would be a good way for other
| people to see and inquire about, and hopefully realize they can
| donate too if they care to.
| lmeyerov wrote:
| Oh wow, I read the post and thought congrats Moxie, job indeed
| done. We are still not there, so a lot of empathy for the
| feelings behind that :)
|
| ... Except if it is donations and esp. Brian Acton's, or even
| say Firefox with most of their money being one Google or Bing
| search bar deal... the sustainable business isn't there yet. A
| replacement CEO can be good just for that. Marlin as a CEO
| found amazing product/user fit, and as a tech leader, hired
| enough and built enough for a great dev culture. But there is
| no sustainable product/customer fit yet, esp if they view the
| user as not the established product: the market isn't paying. A
| CEO focused on solving that would be quite healthy for
| achieving sustainability! Hopefully Brian and his successor
| will have more room now to figure that out, it's not easy, esp
| given their privacy mission!
|
| (And still congrats and a lot of respect to Moxie for building
| something people want & helps security, and growing a team to
| deliver it, and everyone else for pushing into the next phase!)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Turns out it 's donations_
|
| Are they still doing the crypto scheme? I stopped donating when
| that started, but would be more than happy to pick it back up
| if they reversed course.
| anonporridge wrote:
| They just rolled it out globally,
| https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-
| cryptocurrency...
| frabcus wrote:
| This feels more interesting than most cryptocurrency uses.
| One thing a cryptocurrency _can_ be is an open protocol for
| payments - it makes sense to try and make one into such a
| protocol. The privacy preserving aspects of MobileCoin are
| interesting and feel like they fit with Signal too.
| [deleted]
| ScoobleDoodle wrote:
| I did the same thing. I had setup a monthly donation to
| Signal several months before the crypto announcement. When I
| heard about the crypto thing I cancelled my monthly donation.
| kbenson wrote:
| I'm not sure. I'm a bit torn on that. If they can sustain
| themselves though some method, that's good, but I would
| rather that method be aligned fairly closely with their
| initial goals of security and privacy, which crypto pays good
| lip service to but it's always the best at achieving, given
| public ledgers.
|
| I guess I'm just worried about perverting what makes it a
| good messaging client, and would rather they get money from
| people that support that cause so they aren't as tempted to
| chase some other path because the alternative is to shutter.
|
| That said, that can happen even if they can sustain
| themselves through donations if the management/board decide
| to do so. Just have to hope it stays the course.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| Amazon Smile also has signal foundation as a non profit.
| zwass wrote:
| I too took to donating through the app so that I could get the
| icon. My donations continue through their website, but it's
| also important to spread the word to folks like you that Signal
| needs funding to continue its mission!
| cbsmith wrote:
| I went through the same process. Acton gave them a huge
| foundational base, but you want it to be a viable model in its
| own right.
| conroy wrote:
| While this is true, remember that the Signal Foundation was
| started with a sizeable investment from their new interim CEO
| Brian Acton.
|
| > In February of 2018, Acton invested $50 million of his own
| money to start the Signal Foundation alongside Moxie
| Marlinspike > > https://signalfoundation.org/en/
|
| He's worth at least a billion dollars, so one imagines that
| Signal will continue as long as he's involved.
| cge wrote:
| Note that this was an unusual arrangement, to say the least.
| My understanding, from memory of having briefly looked into
| this, is that Acton _loaned_ $50m to the Foundation, rather
| than donating it, in what appears to be a 50-year, interest-
| free loan with no regular repayments. As an initial donation
| of that size from an individual would have probably put the
| Signal Foundation into private foundation status rather than
| public charity status, this has at least the appearance of
| trying to circumvent the public support requirements of
| public charities.
|
| It is somewhat difficult for one individual to consistently
| single-handedly support a charity in the US without causing
| the tax status of the organization to change detrimentally.
| cperciva wrote:
| There are provisions for individual large donations to be
| excluded from the public-support calculation if the charity
| can make the case that they are "unusual". No idea if that
| would apply here though.
| moeadham wrote:
| If they invest the 50M, and keep the team lean, it can be
| long-term sustainable.
| cge wrote:
| But that---a $50m donation from an individual, then
| sustaining the organization off investing that donation
| ---is _exactly_ what, whether it makes sense or not, a
| public charity in the US is usually not allowed to do.
| That would make it a private foundation in the eyes of
| the IRS.
|
| With that said, if I'm interpreting their 2019 filing
| correctly, it appears that they _are_ making enough in
| donations that they may have a legitimate claim to being
| able to eventually repay the loan, and they are now
| including imputed interest on the (interest-free) loan as
| revenue.
| mfer wrote:
| From Wikipedia...
|
| > The foundation was started with an initial $50 million loan
| from Acton, who had left WhatsApp's parent company, Facebook,
| in September 2017.[8] The Freedom of the Press Foundation had
| previously served as the Signal project's fiscal sponsor and
| continued to accept donations on behalf of the project while
| the foundation's non-profit status was pending.[4] By the end
| of 2018, the loan had increased to $105,000,400, which is due
| to be repaid on February 28, 2068. The loan is unsecured and
| at 0% interest.
|
| Appears it wasn't an outright donation. I've always wondered
| about the details behind this. Don't think I've seen
| something like this before.
| tw04 wrote:
| It wasn't an outright donation as a protection mechanism.
| If they go full Oculus he wants his money back. If they
| remain true to the founding principals, it'll likely just
| be forgiven upon death or put into some funky trust.
| umeshunni wrote:
| Giving money probably has some tax implications. Providing
| a loan does not.
| nostromo wrote:
| This is technically true, but the donation would be tax
| advantageous over a loan, so I can't imagine that's the
| reason.
| chippiewill wrote:
| An unsecured, 0% interest loan with a 50 year term may as
| well be a donation.
| nostromo wrote:
| It gives him more control over the org than a donation
| would have.
|
| For all intents an purposes, he owns Signal. He's the
| org's benefactor, lender, founder, board member, and now
| CEO.
| Kye wrote:
| People said the same about Keybase because of who was behind
| it. Just because it's got moneyed people running it doesn't
| mean they won't sell once their priorities change.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| You can't take him for granted like that. Yeah he donated a
| lot and yeah he has more and yeah he left $1B on the table
| after leaving Facebook, but he just can't do it all alone.
|
| If you're rich you get all kinds of people in your life
| soliciting your money, you gotta watch it like a hawk, it's
| easy to lose a billion dollars.
| cpach wrote:
| Good point. And he might also want to donate to other
| charities. There are many worthy causes besides Signal.
|
| And it's probably sound for Signal to not rely on one
| single wealthy donor.
| dheera wrote:
| > There are many worthy causes besides Signal
|
| To be fair, that applies to non-billionaires as well.
| cpach wrote:
| Indeed!
| rantanplan wrote:
| > it's easy to lose a billion dollars
|
| :O
| novok wrote:
| 20 $50 million donations to various groups and $1 billion
| dollars is gone. You could probably do that in 5 years
| and still not come out as effective.
| louthy wrote:
| > it's easy to lose a billion dollars
|
| With doors that go like this or this and not like this
| sdenton4 wrote:
| The Signal Foundation is in Benevity, which powers lots and
| lots of corporate gift matching. I give a yearly matched
| donation each december as I try to reach the max matching for
| my company.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Thanks for pointing that out, wasn't aware of it, just
| subscribed too.
| brylie wrote:
| Thanks for the suggestion. I just set up an in-app recurring
| donation to get my profile badge too
| gojomo wrote:
| With the integration of MobileCoin, Signal has a potential
| web3-style path to sustainability.
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-cryptocurrency...
| ForHackernews wrote:
| No, this is very bad news and could end up with end-to-end
| encryption being outlawed in the name of preventing money
| laundering https://www.theverge.com/22872133/signal-
| cryptocurrency-paym...
| e40 wrote:
| I just stopped my signal donation today, which I've been doing
| monthly last year due to this:
|
| https://amycastor.com/2021/04/07/signal-adopts-mobilecoin-a-...
|
| Was it an overreaction? I don't think so. I feel dumb stuff
| like this, massive conflicts of interest, happens too often
| these days, and I'm voting with my wallet.
| phgn wrote:
| Hearing about Wikipedia's deceptive fundraising messaging [0]
| made me question all donations to large non-profits -- but I
| guess a 30-people org is a different matter. Plus, Signal
| doesn't seem to be aggressive about it.
|
| [0] https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-
| fundrais...
| wrycoder wrote:
| _When the WMF announced the creation of an endowment with the
| Tides Foundation in January 2016, on Wikipedia's 15th
| birthday, its goal was to accumulate $100 million over 10
| years, as "a permanent source of funding to ensure Wikipedia
| thrives for generations to come."
|
| Just five years later, the endowment passed $90 million, and
| the $100 million mark, now described as an "initial goal,"
| will be reached this year._
|
| https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/tides-foundation/
|
| Which partly explains Wikipedia's political stance.
| SquishyPanda23 wrote:
| > Which partly explains Wikipedia's political stance.
|
| I'm curious to hear what you think Wikipedia's political
| stance is?
| kodah wrote:
| > The Tides Foundation is a major center-left grantmaking
| organization and a major pass-through funder to numerous
| left-leaning nonprofits.
|
| The fact that they declare themselves center-left is not a
| violation of 501(c)(3)?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I forget the precise rules on political activity, but
| when the IRS investigated what was (blatent, IIRC)
| violations of it by right-wing organizations several
| years ago, the right and GOP pointed their propaganda
| cannons at the IRS and its head, a non-partisan public
| servant, making it clear that such rules were not to be
| enforced (and the rule of law is inferior to the GOP).
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| What you're quoting is InfluenceWatch's description of
| the Tides Foundation, not their description of
| themselves. Their own description (from their About page)
| is "Tides is a philanthropic partner and nonprofit
| accelerator dedicated to building a world of shared
| prosperity and social justice."
| calcifer wrote:
| No? What provision do you think are they violating?
| YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo wrote:
| Why would it be?
| ekanes wrote:
| This deserves more attention.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| Now it becomes clear why he was attacking Telegram and web3 so
| tirelessly lately.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't post unsubstantive comments or cross into personal
| attack.
|
| Thoughtful critique is welcome, of course, but it would need to
| contain a lot more information than this.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| x3ro wrote:
| He was attacking Telegram because he's resigning as the CEO of
| Signal? What is the obvious connection there that you have
| seen?
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| IMHO, he was attacking _Telegram_ because Signal lost in
| popularity to Telegram, and investors were not happy.
|
| And he was attacking _web3_ because these same investors
| pushed cryptocurrency features into Signal, and he was wildly
| against it.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| He was attacking Telegram because it was letting people
| believe that they conversations were e2e encrypted when
| they weren't.
| tptacek wrote:
| Signal doesn't have investors.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| [deleted]
| Klonoar wrote:
| This reads like conspiracy theory with no hard facts to
| back it up. It's been demonstrably false as well.
| tptacek wrote:
| Obviously, none of this is true.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| >investors were not happy.
|
| Who?
| [deleted]
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| Come up with a commercial Signal server, where the server is not
| at/by Signal.
|
| Sell the server to secret squirrels, etc.
| apayan wrote:
| Thank you to Moxie and the entire team at Signal for building
| this incredible software and releasing it out in the world! I've
| been using it since the TextSecure and RedPhone days and moving
| more and more of friends and family to it ever since.
|
| To the HN crowd, please become a sustainer (monthly donations) of
| Signal through the app. You get a badge that way, which is an
| opportunity for those you communicate with to learn about
| becoming a sustainer too.
| sulam wrote:
| This all seems like good stuff, but as someone who used to work
| with Moxie, I think the obvious should be stated: the only reason
| for an interim CEO is to move out of the role immediately. He
| could just as easily have stayed in the role while he hunted for
| a successor.
|
| I'm curious why he wants to vacate post haste, but I'm used to
| not having my curiosity satisfied when it comes to Moxie. :)
| xeromal wrote:
| >I will continue to remain on the Signal board, committed to
| helping manifest Signal's mission from that role, and I will be
| transitioning out as CEO over the next month in order to focus
| on the candidate search. Brian Acton, who is also on the Signal
| Foundation board, has volunteered to serve as interim CEO
| during the search period. I have every confidence in his
| commitment to the mission and ability to facilitate the team
| for this time.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I noticed that too. Why is it so important to leave this month,
| after 10 years? I hope everything is ok, with the Signal
| organization and with Moxie.
| streamofdigits wrote:
| Signal has already changed history in a way. The past few years,
| as trust in a certain type of ethically challenged tech company
| has come crashing down it was vitally important to have a
| tangible example of a working, usable alternative.
|
| Important for users, but also important for policy makers and
| other people in high places that are typically tech-illiterate
| and may assume that trillion dollar valuation implies TINA (there
| is no alternative).
|
| Moxie and that tiny group of developers @ signal have been
| granted a moment of extreme leverage and they made great use of
| it.
|
| Godspeed
| lelandbatey wrote:
| As a five-year user of Signal, thanks for making Signal such a
| fantastic messenger, Moxie.
| irq wrote:
| Maybe Signal will finally add native Apple M1 support now? It's
| been over a year and they already have ARM code in their iOS
| version.
| celsoazevedo wrote:
| The beta version of the client received M1 support last month:
|
| https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop/issues/4461#issu...
|
| It opens way, way faster than the Intel version.
| monocasa wrote:
| Yeah, JITs on top of Rosetta2 is one of it's weakest areas.
| warning26 wrote:
| My hope is that maybe with new leadership Signal can finally get
| export/migration features. There seems to have been a deliberate
| resistance to adding them.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| A big risk is that the new leader, having less authority and
| fewer credentials for their choices, will compmromise Signal's
| security to pressure from the public.
|
| With only 30 people, I am glad things are delayed. That is
| necessary if Signal doesn't develop and release them before
| they can be done right.
| frisco wrote:
| I just hope that moxie's replacement is someone with as strong a
| reputation for fighting for the principles at stake and the
| ability to defend them. How many people could have written the
| Cellebrite blog post? Probably not many. The hidden pressures on
| Signal staff must be enormous, as likely the the world's single
| most valuable surveillance target.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Adding MobileCoin to Signal really changed my perceptions about
| just how principled the Signal foundation really is. I have a
| lot of respect for much of Moxie's work, but the MobileCoin
| thing is still a head-scratcher.
| Klonoar wrote:
| For context - have you actually tried it? It's pretty good.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| It's such a terrible idea for many reasons, but mainly
| because it's like waving a red flag at ignorant lawmakers:
| https://www.theverge.com/22872133/signal-cryptocurrency-
| paym...
| ignoramous wrote:
| Why so? Moxie helped design MobileCoin. Besides, his recent
| post on web3 lays it bare what he thinks of it.
|
| MobileCoin, in time, I hope grows up to be a credible
| alternative to Facebook's USDP (Diem), like how Signal is to
| WhatsApp. I don't think its inclusion a head-scratcher at
| all. If anything, I hope it serves its purpose well, and
| isn't unfairly regulated to oblivion.
| phgn wrote:
| I got the impression that his web3 post [0] only talks
| about token incentives, DAOs and other decentralisation for
| decentralisation's sake. There's no mention of MobileCoin,
| which I gather he just sees as tool to facilitate anonymous
| payments (it's a token on top of Stellar).
|
| [0] https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-
| impressions.html
| gojomo wrote:
| Though MobileCoin may have borrowed a consensus mechanism
| from Stellar, I've seen no indication that it's a token
| on the Stellar chain.
| phgn wrote:
| You're right, sorry I have misread this then. According
| to Wikipedia, MobileCoin uses its own blockchain based on
| mechanics from Stellar and Monero [0]. That also makes a
| lot more sense technically, and explains the supposed 4
| years of development [1].
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MobileCoin
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26726246
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| So I think the motivation was, let's fight censorship. What
| gets censored? Speech, and also...money. OK then let's enable
| money too.
| bawolff wrote:
| Which part do you find objectionable?
|
| I hate most of the cryptocurrency-bs, but mobilecoin seems to
| have been designed carefully to avoid most of the objectional
| aspects of blockchain stuff.
| anonporridge wrote:
| This is the main part, https://www.reddit.com/r/signal/comm
| ents/mm6nad/bought_mobil...
| robby_w_g wrote:
| Prior discussion can be found here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26724237
|
| The CEO has posts in the thread as well.
| phgn wrote:
| Here's the direct link to the comments from MobileCoin's
| CEO (not Moxie):
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26726246
|
| Funny how he avoids answering any questions about
| financial incentives and token sales.
|
| Edit: Also note how the mentioned primary goal of
| MobileCoin is to "fund Signal", not to be a payments
| layer for it.
| [deleted]
| tempest_ wrote:
| I balk at any mention of crypto as a rule (since the
| landscape is so saturated with hucksters) but I have to
| assume it is to provide a functionality similar to WhatsApp
| Pay, Venmo and whatever WeChat has.
|
| Those in app type payments are a huge part of message app
| usage in some parts of the world where I am sure Signal would
| like to increase uptake.
| cpach wrote:
| It makes me nervous too. However, I will continue to use
| Signal but without using MobileCoin. I hope Signal will do
| what's right.
|
| [In my region we already have a good system for mobile
| payments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swish_(payment)]
| xvector wrote:
| This is my biggest concern. Hopefully the replacement will
| truly care about user privacy and have the balls to fight for
| it, even if it means going up against large (governmental)
| organizations.
| capableweb wrote:
| > I just hope that moxie's replacement is someone with as
| strong a reputation for fighting for the principles at stake
| and the ability to defend them
|
| Yes, and who has a better reputation for fighting for
| principles than Brian Acton, one of the guys who made Whatsapp
| and subsequently sold it to the most morally correct company in
| the world: Facebook.
| fragmede wrote:
| I mean, he walked away from $800 million in Facebook stock
| because his belief in privacy wouldn't allow him to continue
| working on WhatsApp, post-acquisition. I think that speaks
| louder than selling WhatsApp in the first place.
| mfer wrote:
| Acton has had an interesting road since selling WhatsApp to
| Facebook. That includes leaving Facebook with $850 million
| USD in shares on the table for leaving early and telling
| people to delete their Facebook accounts. Looking at what
| he's done tells the story of someone who learned many lessons
| since he sold WhatsApp.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| i wonder if Acton figured that WhatsApp might lose to
| competitors and privacy-focused people would migrate to a
| new app anyways, and he could do more good with almost $1
| billion.
|
| And also $1 billion is quite a lot of money.
| skrebbel wrote:
| People make mistakes. Seems to me Acton is trying to do
| everything he can to correct it.
| bawolff wrote:
| There are two types of people in the world: those who sell
| their start ups for 16 billion, and those that dont have
| startups people are willing to pay 16 billion for.
|
| I am very doubtful that very many people here would turn down
| that sort of money if given the opportunity. Its very easy to
| wax poetic about virtue when nobody is trying to tempt you.
| nicholasjarnold wrote:
| I've been a user and evangelizer of Signal (aka TextSecure and
| even RedPhone when the audio piece was split off as a separate
| app) for a very long time now. I admire the work that Moxie and
| the entire team have put in over all these years. Thank you all
| so much for the great work, whether it be writing blog posts
| rebutting the "I have nothing to hide" people or implementing
| open and secure-by-default protocols and apps that put privacy
| within reach of even the least technically-savvy among us!
|
| I hope the next adventure is as fruitful as this one was Moxie.
| Cheers!
| mplewis wrote:
| Will the new CEO remove the Mobilecoin scam asset from the secure
| messaging product?
| zzzbra wrote:
| wonder what Moxie will get up to next, given his web3 skepticism
| and the state of the tech industry today.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| Hopefully he finds some time to sail heh.
| xbar wrote:
| I do miss the days of various squats and plywood boat
| failures. More of that please, Moxie. But mostly, thanks for
| Signal.
| creamytaco wrote:
| His web3 skepticism did not stop him from getting involved with
| "MobileCoin" some time ago, or was that conveniently forgotten?
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/mobilecoin-cryptocurrency/
| 0xy wrote:
| Another scamcoin or "open source" (not really) project, no
| doubt.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't cross into personal attack.
| null0pointer wrote:
| I'm a big fan of Moxie. Thanks for all the work you've done to
| give people a free and secure way of communicating. A truly
| important cause.
|
| Ultra-cynical take: I wonder if there's an element of avoiding
| conflict-of-interest accusations regarding Mobilecoin.
| tandav wrote:
| Still require SIM to sign up
| iqanq wrote:
| Canada wrote:
| If you get good value out of Signal and you can afford 5, 10 or
| 20 bucks a month get that auto-donate signed up. I can't think of
| a more cost effective way to directly contribute to practical
| privacy.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| If it's really a 501(c)(3), you can use Amazon Smile to give a
| small percentage of your purchases (1/2 of 1% if memory serves)
| to Signal.
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| Good tip. I am donating currently to National Parks
| Foundation using AmazonSmile but I could definitely consider
| this in future.
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| Will Apple still able to get the 30% cut if I do using in app
| payment? Any idea? Does it make more sense to sign up for
| monthly donation via web to get more money donated to Signal vs
| not getting a badge?
| artinmg wrote:
| On their website Signal says no:
| https://support.signal.org/hc/en-
| us/articles/4408365318426-S...
| saurik wrote:
| If you are using In-App Purchase then yes, for almost
| whatever it is (I think they might have at least a couple
| special deals with major publishing companies... not Signal
| ;P) you are "donating" 30% of your money to Apple.
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| Thanks - I would like to get all my money to Signal in this
| case so I just signed up for monthly donation using their
| website link.
| nacs wrote:
| Not in this case. According to Signal, neither Google nor
| Apple get a cut:
|
| https://support.signal.org/hc/en-
| us/articles/4408365318426-S...
| Canada wrote:
| Is it different? I just did it via app without a second
| thought.
|
| If you only get the badge via app I think it's better even if
| a chunk is taken by the app store, because then people ask
| "wtf is that heart thing?" and then I can tell certain
| contacts what it is get them to do it too.
| onphonenow wrote:
| The mobile coin pumpup powered by the nonprofit Signal Foundation
| was weird.
|
| They got the coin up to $60 from something like $3.
|
| This starts to be another hustle (and with the money folks can
| make exploiting a nonprofit in this way no surprise really).
|
| Normally the nonprofit would own the asset it is improving in
| this situation or get a BIG cut of the upside for leveraging an
| asset like the Signal network (just as any crypto coin company
| would).
|
| In this case it all seemed very very shady.
|
| My guess is someone wants to cash out somewhere on using the
| nonprofit to pump things up perhaps? I'd pay attention to what
| they are doing in the crypto space recently to see if there are
| any correlated activities
| aemreunal wrote:
| I'm wondering if the recent "adding crypto transfers to Signal"
| stuff had anything to do with this...
| djanogo wrote:
| I was wondering the same, what if this is to avoid conflict
| with monetization of Mobilecoin.
| EGreg wrote:
| I wish Moxie sees this, would love to have a conversation and
| maybe have him work together with our project:
| https://community.intercoin.org/t/web3-moxie-signal-telegram...
| chagaif wrote:
| I'm still really disappointed he didn't go for a more long term
| solution, federation: https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-
| privacy-versus-freedom
| fossuser wrote:
| Moxie's post that your Matrix link was a response to:
| https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
|
| I think Moxie is right, federation will lead back to
| recentralized services (for the reasons Moxie outlines in his
| recent Web3 post). People don't want to run their own servers.
| In that world you'll have federated services that are mostly
| centralized with a much worse user experience than centralized
| competition. Signal's real competition isn't Matrix, it's FB
| messenger, Whatsapp, and iMessage.
|
| The incentive failures are actually upstream from the
| application layer of the web. Running a linux server is too
| hard, spam and auth are issues with the current tech stack,
| dependencies are a mess of complexity and federated systems
| built on the current stack can't really solve these issues so
| end up recentralizing to sysadmins that do (at best). This is
| the reason I started working on Urbit, I think to fix this for
| real you have to fix problems farther up the stack.
|
| Given the current landscape, Signal is the best available
| option imo for most people. Hopefully if Urbit succeeds we can
| have the federated system we want with UX that's actually
| competitive.
| chagaif wrote:
| I prefer the Element UX especially since I can actually use
| it for WhatsApp/Telegram which I still use heavily, there are
| a lot of people/businesses/governments backing on Matrix,
| Signal is just another app that is controlled by the US
| government and I don't see much privacy there in the long
| term... Yes it will be recentralized but not completely, how
| come E-Mail did so good?
| fossuser wrote:
| You may personally prefer it just as some niche audience
| still personally prefers to run their own email server, but
| your grandma will never prefer it or use it and neither
| will 90% of the public.
|
| Email is an example of this class of failure. Almost
| everyone uses a centralized provider (mostly Google) and
| even if you do go through the effort to run your own server
| since nearly everyone you interact with is using gmail it's
| mostly pointless anyway.
|
| Signal is not controlled by the USG (see recent doc about
| what metadata they have access to via Signal). I ran a
| Matrix server for a while, the UX around setting up
| encryption is bad (not for lack of trying, it's just a hard
| problem given the constraints). Most people just use the
| Matrix.org server and will never run their own (which is
| the recentralization risk I'm talking about) - at best
| you'll have a couple providers, and dealing with spam is
| still a problem. You'll also have a system that adapts
| slowly because it's harder to make changes to this kind of
| system, it'll always be worse.
|
| To escape the incentives that lead back to recentralization
| and to create a federated system that isn't just another
| niche nerd hobby, you really have to think about the issues
| that lead back to centralization from first principles. I
| think Urbit's design and the tradeoffs they make do this.
|
| https://moronlab.blogspot.com/2010/01/urbit-functional-
| progr...
|
| https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit
| rglullis wrote:
| > You may personally prefer it just as some niche
| audience still personally prefers to run their own email
| server.
|
| No. This is a false dichotomy. There is a very healthy
| market for email service providers. Basically every
| domain registrar runs one, a good amount of ISPs... there
| can be a cottage industry for service providers.
|
| > Almost everyone uses a centralized provider
|
| Because the large companies make it free to try to make
| their money by either exploiting the data or by using the
| email service as a loss leader. Signal can not do either,
| so they will have to rely on some other revenue stream,
| or they will end up like Mozilla.
| rglullis wrote:
| The "problem" of federated systems is that it dilutes power
| across businesses and does not allow any single entity to
| control the ecosystem. _This is a good thing_ , except that
| it makes it harder to fight head-to-head with trillion dollar
| companies that use messaging platforms as loss leaders.
|
| Thing is, Signal has the _exact same issue_ : the top post of
| this thread is about how people are feeling compelled to
| donate to Signal so that it does not rely on one kind
| benefactor. If people want to donate to Signal, why not
| donate/hedge a bit by donating to Matrix or to the
| Conversations (the best XMPP client) developers?
|
| > Signal is the best available option imo for most people.
|
| Signal is still centralized. It is "open source" only in
| name, as the client code was constantly out-of-date and it is
| basically impossible to fork it or run your own server. It
| has a very poor record cross-client vulnerabilities and it
| forces everyone to be dependent on the security of their
| smartphones. How many times do we have to re-learn not to put
| all of our eggs in the same basket?
| kitkat_new wrote:
| > I think Moxie is right, federation will lead back to
| recentralized services (for the reasons Moxie outlines in his
| recent Web3 post).
|
| it does not, see Email
| gringoDan wrote:
| The New Yorker profile of Moxie stuck with me. Worth reading in
| full: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/26/taking-back-
| ou...
|
| HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24824956
| nxtbl wrote:
| and from TFA above:
|
| > In early 2018, Acton and Marlinspike announced the formation
| of the Signal Foundation, a nonprofit. Acton, the foundation's
| chairman and sole member, seeded it with a no-interest, fifty-
| million-dollar loan.
|
| additionally from Wikipedia:
|
| > By the end of 2018, the loan had increased to $105,000,400,
| which is due to be repaid on February 28, 2068. The loan is
| unsecured and at 0% interest.
| ushakov wrote:
| unsecure 0% interest 105M loan? where can i get this?
| scrollbar wrote:
| I see the terms as a donation or grant. The money still is
| a loan (vs a grant), but the terms are well below "market"
| in order to support the non-profit's cause.
| wmf wrote:
| But why structure it that way? Does anyone know?
| cge wrote:
| My guess was that it is a way of keeping the organization
| from failing the public support test
| (https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-
| organizatio...), which generally requires that at least
| 1/3 of the organization's support comes from the general
| public, not from, eg, one individual donor. Failing the
| public support test would make the foundation a private
| foundation instead of a public charity, which would
| change a number of regulations and have a small (usually
| 2%) on investment income.
|
| What's particularly odd is that, if they were they a
| private foundation, as Acton is a board member (who also
| appears to have sole power to determine board members), I
| think the loan itself would be a prohibited act of self-
| dealing.
| usrusr wrote:
| Might have also been an attempt to appear less of a
| target for that breed of self-serving administrators that
| seem to haunt certain other foundations in tech. And to
| keep reasonably humble people reasonably humble.
| schoen wrote:
| Just invent an awesome and innovative set of cryptographic
| protocols, make an incredibly usable set of secure
| communications tools with them, and agree to give them away
| for free to the world. Hopefully you will be blessed in
| return with the same kind of support that Moxie was!
| dstroot wrote:
| Moxie - thank you so much for building Signal for the world.
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| Thank you Moxie for all your hard work, commitment and mission
| driven leadership to get Signal where it is today. I have many
| friends and family living across the world and I was able to
| replace WhatsApp with Signal and got out of FB ecosystem and
| really enjoying the peace of mind that comes with Signal's
| privacy and non-tracking for my communication needs. A big thank
| you indeed.
| 650REDHAIR wrote:
| Thanks for everything, Moxie!
|
| I'm sure you don't remember this story, but I remember years ago
| (2011?) having a drink with you and Stuart while we were working
| out of I/O Ventures. I was talking about buying a cheap sail boat
| and you very calmly told me that the ocean will kill me. That it
| was always trying to kill me.
|
| Anyway, I think about that conversation nearly every time I'm in
| or on the water and it's definitely kept me alive.
| okneil wrote:
| Great to see Brian Acton (founder of WhatsApp) taking over as
| interim CEO and the logical choice.
| capableweb wrote:
| Hopefully remains as interim. I'm still suspicious based on
| previous experience with him selling Whatsapp to Facebook and
| all that. Actually, very surprising move, are they planning to
| sell Signal?
| zzzbra wrote:
| I can't imagine they intend to sell Signal but then when I
| say "they" it's always been a stand in for Marlinspike. We
| can only hope he's correct in terms of the team he's built
| continuing the mission that had formerly been guided by his
| judgment.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Obviously you can't be sure he's sincere, but he's on record
| as saying he regrets that sale.
| anonporridge wrote:
| * step 1: Make bucket of money selling your private comm
| app to FB.
|
| * step 2: Publicly declare your regret for that decision.
|
| * step 3: Take leadership of big competitor to previous
| app.
|
| * step 4: Goto step 1 for double profit and to continue
| tearing down functioning attempts at large scale private
| communications platforms.
| fossuser wrote:
| The only reason Whatsapp was bidded up to an _insane_ 19
| Billion sale value was because Acton did not want to
| sell. Note that it 's not insane in terms of value (in
| hindsight this was clearly a good buy for FB), but insane
| when considering that value for your small 30 person
| company.
|
| That's a crazy sale price, I'd like to see you turn it
| down.
|
| It can be true that he didn't want to sell and regrets it
| _and_ just couldn 't reject that offer, the opportunity
| costs available to you at the level are nuts. This is a
| risk with centralized services, it's why we need systems
| that don't require benevolence:
| https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/07/14/the-serfs-of-
| facebook...
|
| Most people don't have principles valued at 19B.
|
| I think Urbit is a potential way to get there, but a lot
| of the web3 ownership model points in this direction.
| ayngg wrote:
| Also turning down money for yourself is one thing, but
| turning it down for your employees and everyone else
| involved is different.
| fossuser wrote:
| Agreed - at that level you're talking nearly 100M for
| each employee? Maybe more?
|
| Even if I'm off by a magnitude (and I think I'm not) -
| that's life changing money for everyone that helped him
| build Whatsapp.
| btdmaster wrote:
| Try Matrix: https://joinmatrix.org.
| fossuser wrote:
| Matrix doesn't solve these issues, see:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29882848
|
| That said, I think Matrix is cool and appreciate what
| they're trying to do. I just think without solving the
| upstream problems you won't be able to succeed beyond a
| niche audience.
| _heimdall wrote:
| There's a step between 1 and 2 that you missed - choose
| to quit from FB and leave $800,000,000 in stock on the
| table
| anonporridge wrote:
| That's an important part of getting step 3 to happen.
|
| You need proof of regret, and $800 million seems to have
| been enough. Cheap money if you can make step 4 happen
| such that it nets more than 0.8 billion.
| lelandbatey wrote:
| Given that Brian Acton apparently _" left over a dispute with
| Facebook regarding monetization of WhatsApp, and voluntarily
| left $850 million in unvested options on the table by leaving
| a few months before vesting was completed"_[0] and that he
| went on to found the Signal Foundation one year later with
| Moxie Marlinspike in 2018, I feel it's not a super clear
| signal that Acton or Marlinspike are trying to "sell" Signal.
|
| [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Acton#WhatsApp
| lovecg wrote:
| Just for context, that's after vesting a few billions
| already.
| Hasu wrote:
| Okay, but still. It seems like a stretch that the guy is
| secretly evil but voluntarily gave up almost $1 billion
| to deceptively prove he's not actually a bad guy. You can
| claim to be a good guy and wait a few months to cash out
| - leaving money on the table IS a real signal, even if
| he's already rich.
| avarun wrote:
| You're the only one that has used the word "evil" here.
| anonporridge wrote:
| Depends on if he _actually_ left money on the table or if
| he speculated that there would be more money coming to
| him if he publicly left FB when he did.
|
| Social/public good will is a kind of money itself that
| can't easily be measured in dollars. That's a big part of
| the reason extremely wealthy people engage in
| philanthropy.
|
| Good will is a currency that opens some doors that no
| amount of raw dollars can open.
| s17n wrote:
| They incorporated Signal as a nonprofit, so it is illegal for
| anybody to personally profit from the sale of Signal. Of
| course, that hasn't always stopped people from trying (eg,
| the recent debacle with the .org tld).
| ehPReth wrote:
| What happened there?
| izacus wrote:
| Hopefully that means he'll prioritize things that are making
| Signal a hard sell to WhatsApp and Telegram users.
|
| Making Signal a messenger on equal footing would go a long way
| to increase adoption.
| marricks wrote:
| He did leave Facebook because of privacy issues right? That
| should be a good sign...
| lovecg wrote:
| I wouldn't be so sure. He also benefitted greatly from
| selling it to Facebook in the first place, and stayed on for
| a few years.
| dymk wrote:
| Everybody that joins Facebook thinks they can "fix" it, and
| many stick around trying to do so. Eventually they leave.
| saxonww wrote:
| The WhatsApp sale also happened back in 2014. I don't
| think FB was especially well liked at that time, but they
| didn't have as bad a reputation as they do now. 7-8 years
| is a long time.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I remember WhatsApp touting the fact that they charge a
| $1/year subscription to be evidence that they will not
| sell out data about your use of the app and your
| contacts, presumably as a contrast to the chat apps
| offered by Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and others
| wanting to sling ads.
|
| Obviously, the offer from FB was worth selling out for.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-10 23:00 UTC)