Coinbase to Support Bitcoin Core Developers

[Upgrade00]

Coinbase is looking to support two Bitcoin core developers with fund grants to support their projects;

As part of our Crypto Community Fund, Coinbase plans to sponsor at least two Bitcoin developers, who contribute directly to the Bitcoin Core codebase or closely associated Bitcoin projects. We are beginning our search for grant recipients starting today.

We believe helping to connect and grow the cryptoeconomy is essential to building an open financial system for the world. Our Crypto Community Fund aims to grow and improve the entire crypto industry, while making it simpler to use and more secure for everyone. If successful, we intend to expand the program to other types of projects and crypto communities.

I'm not a huge fan of centralized exchanges and Coinbase has been involved in some shady situations over the past years, but this is a good move and could increase interest in development, although I doubt Bitcoin devs are short of inspiration to work with.
Asides the selected projects getting fund grants, this could also be a good way to increase publicity for projects aimed at improving the network.

The grants covers some niche areas;

• Direct contributions to Bitcoin Core (e.g., improving testing, fuzzing, bug fixes, improvements)
• Significant code and/or Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) review
• Contributor tooling (e.g., bitcoinacks.com, which is open source)
• Bitcoin Core libraries and tools (e.g., libsecp256k1)
• Improvement to testing (e.g., fuzz testing, functional tests)

Source
However, in the Google form for applications, there is a space for More, so if a project doesn't fit the above descriptions it could still be submitted with details and has a chance of getting accepted.

Is there any other aspect of project development you would like to see on the list?
Are there devs you have in mind to nominate? Here is the Google form - https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSetlLv4Il7GiX0gwzWPk1-j-8jXQPKBn-MZXZ-ThtjHcxS3Lg/viewform

[Welsh]

Who decides on significant code changes? Wondering what the criteria of that would be whether it would be over x amount of code changes, or a subjective decision from Coinbase. I definitely do agree that this is something good for Bitcoin, and adds a little incentive to the Bitcoin Core Developers was well as those developing related systems which is always a good thing. I'm wondering whether this will be split evenly between the different criteria, or if there will be more funds allocated to certain developers, and if this will all be as transparent as possible.

[Upgrade00]

Who decides on significant code changes? Wondering what the criteria of that would be whether it would be over x amount of code changes, or a subjective decision from Coinbase.

The criteria may be based off the quality of the submissions they get. They are looking for at least two devs to support so the quality of the pool would decide how high the bar gets.

I'm wondering whether this will be split evenly between the different criteria, or if there will be more funds allocated to certain developers, and if this will all be as transparent as possible.

As I said above, they're looking to fund two projects, so it could be split between the two selected. I however could not find any indication at the specific amounts. At the bottom of the publication they hinted at their preference for year long projects, but they would also consider shorter ones, there was also a part about increasing the fund overtime, so it's unlikely there is any fixed figure and their contributions would depend on the feedback from the community.

[amishmanish]

Who decides on significant code changes? Wondering what the criteria of that would be whether it would be over x amount of code changes, or a subjective decision from Coinbase.

As per the article, the proposal will be shortlisted by existing core developers and "important" community members. So coinbase is probably not looking for those who have already been core developers like Luke Jr who shared a post on twitter talking about having to go back to working full time after 10 years contributing to bitcoin. Its a bit surprising because core developers like him should probably be comfortably sitting on some old Sats stash.

[Carlton Banks]

one way or another, you can be sure that Coinbase are preparing to influence Bitcoin's development (again).

Mark Andreesen and Brian Armstrong were entirely happy to propose a completely new development team (of their choosing) when they thought they could get away with it in 2017. Recent friendly stories in the newsmedia (about how a-political Coinbase LLC are) hilariously forgot to mention Coinbase's (failed) attempt to politicize Bitcoin itself. This kind of PR-style "advert-orial" just makes Coinbase look even more suspicious.

Andreesen and Armstrong are still a part of Coinbase, and so too are likely other nefarious backers and management. There's no reason to trust Coinbase in their intentions after their manipulative and self-serving record

[mk4]

Just a heads up. For those of you who has some extra sats to contribute to developers, here's an open-source donation page for a some developers of different bitcoin-related projects, made by Matt Odell(you'd know him if you're a Twitter dude): https://bitcoindevlist.com/

[pooya87]

it is one thing to generally make a donation to a project and all the developers involved in that project but it is another to want to sponsor them. the later will give more influence and control over the person(s) they sponsor. and we all know that involvement of any type of centralized companies in development is a very bad idea no matter what that company is.

[jseverson]

Quick reminder that the people who want to sponsor and be involved in Bitcoin Core development are these same people:

The behemoth cryptocurrency exchange has initiated procurement deals with a number of U.S. agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for a cryptocurrency investigations tool called “Coinbase Analytics,” according to publicly available documents. The Block first reported on the prospective deals Friday.

I don't think any one of us really oppose supporting development, but you'll have to remember that for-profit companies like Coinbase exist to make money -- this could very well be another means for that end. Good for them, but I don't like this.

[dothebeats]

Not sure if this is for the benefit of bitcoin as whole or just for Coinbase's own agenda. They are pretty much running around out there trying to make 'good deeds' fairly recently and it's kinda suspicious, knowing how they tried to influence the development of bitcoin in their small schemes way back when the talks about the fork are everywhere. It's cool that they will incentivize the volunteer work of the core developers, though at some point you will really notice that there seems to be a deeper meaning behind these 'good deeds' that they have been flaunting for the past few months.

[JakobFugger]

Who decides on significant code changes? Wondering what the criteria of that would be whether it would be over x amount of code changes, or a subjective decision from Coinbase.

As per the article, the proposal will be shortlisted by existing core developers and "important" community members. So coinbase is probably not looking for those who have already been core developers like Luke Jr who shared a post on twitter talking about having to go back to working full time after 10 years contributing to bitcoin. Its a bit surprising because core developers like him should probably be comfortably sitting on some old Sats stash.

He has a patreon page with 48 sponsors
https://www.patreon.com/LukeDashjr

https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1316052973881966592
"Might also have to go back to more paid work myself soon.

I appreciate those who have stepped up to sponsor my work, but it seems there's simply too few willing to contribute. "

_________________

I think that more industries should have attitudes like this. But all developers seem to have some kind of link to contributions. Whether by pages like the patreon or by direct donation.

This idea of a company being the largest, and only, sponsor of a core developer, does not seem very good. These companies should join the thousands of other individual sponsors. Therefore, it would be more difficult to believe that there is any kind of benefit for these companies.

[kryptqnick]

I'm concerned. While it seems good that they're supporting Bitcoin improvement, I can't imagine that they wouldn't try to push forward whatever interests they have in Bitcoin changing in a specific way. If Coinbase is sponsoring these devs, it's probably not just to provide support to a good cause. Then again, I don't know what sort of decisions are significant enough to be profitable to Coinbase. I mean, it's not like any huge changes can be implemented, Bitcoin is largely remaining the same, right? So perhaps Coinbase is just interested in BTC prosperity and thus wants to support some developers after all.

[hatshepsut93]

I see a lot of people here are worried about this development, but I'm personally not. This is just two developers out of hundreds of Bitcoin Core contributors, even if Coinbase tried to use this to influence Bitcoin, the rest of the contributors won't let it happen.

[AmoreJaz]

I see a lot of people here are worried about this development, but I'm personally not. This is just two developers out of hundreds of Bitcoin Core contributors, even if Coinbase tried to use this to influence Bitcoin, the rest of the contributors won't let it happen.

I'm concerned. While it seems good that they're supporting Bitcoin improvement, I can't imagine that they wouldn't try to push forward whatever interests they have in Bitcoin changing in a specific way. If Coinbase is sponsoring these devs, it's probably not just to provide support to a good cause. Then again, I don't know what sort of decisions are significant enough to be profitable to Coinbase. I mean, it's not like any huge changes can be implemented, Bitcoin is largely remaining the same, right? So perhaps Coinbase is just interested in BTC prosperity and thus wants to support some developers after all.

i believe coinbase is just interested in btc's advancement here. as hatshepsut also pointed out, they are just 2 devs out of hundreds. so there's no way they will be a threat if in case Coinbase decided to influence what they are aiming to accomplish here. and also this move from coinbase, is also good for their marketing image, contributing directly to bitcoin core codebase.

based from this 2019 article, btc has about 50 devs/ month without considering the eco projects.. so we are already in 2020, maybe this number also increases by now.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/ethereum-has-more-than-twice-as-many-core-devs-per-month-as-bitcoin-report

[Wind_FURY]

one way or another, you can be sure that Coinbase are preparing to influence Bitcoin's development (again).

Mark Andreesen and Brian Armstrong were entirely happy to propose a completely new development team (of their choosing) when they thought they could get away with it in 2017. Recent friendly stories in the newsmedia (about how a-political Coinbase LLC are) hilariously forgot to mention Coinbase's (failed) attempt to politicize Bitcoin itself. This kind of PR-style "advert-orial" just makes Coinbase look even more suspicious.

Andreesen and Armstrong are still a part of Coinbase, and so too are likely other nefarious backers and management. There's no reason to trust Coinbase in their intentions after their manipulative and self-serving record

The cynicism is understandable, but could they easily influence it? BIPs go through a process. Before each BIP has a potential for acceptance, the BIP "Author" must debate the idea transparently in public through the Bitcoin developers mailing list.

I believe some proposals were also posted in Bitcointalk's Development and Technical Discussion.

[fiulpro]

That is something very nice that coinbase is going to do for sure , since developers and software engineers do face a lot of problems with limited funds , people who are not willing to support a crypto related project. A lot of resistance from the government itself.
I believe with this they will be able to give them not only support but confidence to the new developers /engineers.

See I understand for a fact that coinbase haven't been the best when it comes to using bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies in a positive way and trying to get politics involved with bitcoins is very catastrophic but I do think I support their idea of supporting the new developers as long as they don't ask for a share in the project or try and use it in negative ways, rest it's a good step , if they are looking forward to correct their mistakes.

Doing something good for the community I think ??

[mindrust]

Coinbase was (probably still is) in bed with Jihan Wu and Roger Ver.

My guess is, they gave up on BCH and now they are again trying to gain position in the Bitcoin development because they realized their little project is not going anywhere.

Just like creating heroine addicts.

First they give it to you for free, after you get addicted, they sell you and you got no other choice than buying it.

When those devs get addicted to the Coinbase money, they'll do whatever coinbase asks because they'll be afraid of losing that fund.

Smart move bald head.

[MainIbem]

It is a welcome development to see coinbase rally support for BTC. It is a further proof that BTC has got wide appeal. HODL you BTC.

[aesma]

Looking at https://bitcoincore.org/ I see no way to give money (crypto of course) to help the project. It's all about free contributions, in the form of code, or related (testing, translating, reviewing, etc.).

So sponsoring individual developers seems to be the only way to contribute money to the project.

[DooMAD]

If a dev were to accept this offer, would they be subject to the same stipulations other Coinbase employees are now forced to adhere to?

I certainly want to see developers supported financially, but I'm wary of the strings that may come attached.

[davis196]

If a big corporation wants to give you money,you will have to give something in return.
I don't believe that Coinbase wants to support Bitcoin Core developers only because of their faith in Bitcoin.
What if Coinbase provides financial support only to Bitcoin Core projects,which benefit the company in one way or another?
I know that consensus is need for approval of changes in the Bitcoin Core source code,but can a big wealthy corporation "bribe" more Bitcoin Core developers into approving a soft fork,which could potentially increase the control of Coinbase over the blockchain?This is just a hypothesis.I don't know the answers of those questions.