Topic: Mozilla says they'll accept Bitcoin & crypto donations (Read 708 times)

No wonder they stopped receiving cryptocurrency donation.


The statistic itself (Energy Consumption Per Transaction (kWh) on PDF page is biased anyway. Energy for PoW mining doesn't affect how much transaction could be processed.

And now they accept neither Bitcoin or Dogecoin.


IMO it's unlikely since Mozilla have very small influence on cryptocurrency/blockchain space.

I wonder whether they'll accept cryptocurrency again after people move their attention from cryptocurrency/blockchain to different topic.


I don't see how those article is defending Kape since they clearly stated their business clearly invade user privacy and manipulate website about VPN review. IMO any privacy-conscious won't use Kape service after reading that article, especially when they know there's better company/service.

Apparently we had a recent update from Mozilla[1] - 7th of April - regarding their stance on accepting BTC and other crypto as donations. Combining the announcement[1] and the wiki entry[2] we get this:

If anyone is interested to see the presentation used at the Mozilla cryptocurrency donation policy and review you can check it out here[3]. Some key figures that I highlight:

• On average they receive $1.000 in cryptocurrency donations (they don't specify by type);
• In all of 2021, Mozilla received 41 transactions, split between BTC (28), BCH (12) and LTC (1). They represented a total of $1,524;
• Out of a total of $3,473,949 received in donations in 2021, the crypto donations represented only 0,04 % of the total balance. In slide 13 they state that 0,04 % belongs to BTC but that's not quite right due to the fact that there were some other coins being donated (BCH and LTC for instance).

After some slides they go into a speculation field where they somehow leverage their average donations and attach a certain kg of CO2 but I don't think that such measure could be made, specially considering that they didn't posted the assumptions that they've used to obtain these figures. They do note that this are "informed estimates" but not much is explained past this field.

I guess we'll have to wait by end of Q2 2022 to see which coins they deem that are a better match for their climate stance.

---

[1]https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/reporting-back-on-mozillas-cryptocurrency-donation-policy/
[2]https://wiki.mozilla.org/Foundation/Cryptocurrency_Donations
[3]https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/8/80/Mozilla_Foundation_Cryptocurrency_Donation_Review_%28MoFo_Meeting%29.pdf

Mozilla is one of my favorite software and I still go to use it sometimes even though now Chrome is what I use (because of work),,, just I wish they did not say about DOGE first before Bitcoin. But I guess these days if you do not pay heed to the trendy things going on,,, people ignore you and move on.

Nice to hear, and I guess this is the reason for the DOGE boost?

A common theme. People constantly say how risky DEXs are and how likely you are to be scammed using them, having never actually used them themselves. Or people say that bitcoin doesn't work as a currency and no one uses it a currency, having never actually tried to use it as a currency. And then people like me, who use DEXs constantly and spend bitcoin as a currency constantly are just sitting over here like , while every centralized exchange in existence continues to leak or sell user data and arbitrarily lock accounts and seize coins.

There has been one successful hack against Bisq, due to a flaw in the code which allowed an attacker to modify the address of the timelocked escrow transaction to their own wallet. They used it to steal 3 Bitcoin and 4000 Monero. A proposal was quickly made and accepted to use funds from the Bisq DAO to fully reimburse all affected users: https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/209

You probably never used Bisq in your life, maybe you read few lines how it works in theory and you are just making an assumptions, like if I would say that you could lost your money when you purchase vegetables in your local shop.
If trading on Bisq something goes wrong it would probably be my own fault for being stupid, and on centralized exchanges I don't have any control and I can lose everything without.
How many times you heard that someone got hacked or scammed using Bisq?
I never eve heard something like that, but I hear all the time about people getting scammed, or accounts get frozen or lose money on centralized exchanges.

They want you to create an account with your real name and full address. How is that not invading your privacy? It is unnecessary for a VPN to collect that information en masse from every customer, since a good VPN will accept anonymous crypto payments.

And if you look at the other information I quoted in the linked post:
I've literally never been scammed once.

Bisq specifically do not accept payment methods which are easily reversible:

I feel far safer trading on Bisq than I do risking all my coins and risking my identity being stolen by using a centralized exchange. The list of centralized exchange hacks (for either coins or data) is endless.

From what I can tell, those who were using the software distributed on their platform were not paying Crossrider (now Kape). It is unclear if they had paying customers (startups often offer their services for free as a ways to get a userbase), however it appears their customers were the developers who would host their software on their platform. I haven't seen any evidence they were offering any kind of warranty on software being distributed on their platform.


I am saying it is not possible to use the data to invade your privacy. You are saying it is unnecessary. Most, if not all of this data is also collected by theymos on this forum. Most of this information is sent to the website you are visiting by default.


Apart from the speed issue related to using Bisq, and the issue that centralized exchanges ultimately are necessary to provide a price reference for professional traders on Bisq, I think there is a very real risk that you will have your money stolen. The incentive structure on Bisq means that you will probably not have anyone scamming for $1, but for larger amounts, the risk is real. Bisq allows for many reversible payment methods that can be potentially reversed long after the fact. Bisq also mentions that sellers accepting higher risk payment methods may ask for things such as "proof" of identity, and giving your information to these types of people is especially risky, far more risky than giving your information to Binance or Coinbase, IMO

It is totally possible with Bisq exchange, and if done correctly it can be even more reliable, because you can't get your account terminated or coins frozen, like in centralized exchanges.
You are not sending any documents for verification so there is nothing to leak and you are much safer there.
I read report how criminals in Croatia used only centralized exchanges like Binance for scamming people, they use Anydesk to gain access to computers of people,
than they send fiat money to Binance exchange, and then buy crypto and withdraw it to their own wallet.
It's really happening now, it's not a theory.

As I said before, I find it irrelevant. Either way, they were allowing their paying customers to be infected with malware. This is significantly different to the analogy you give you people downloading malware via a torrent. This company was doing zero due diligence to the product they were offering consumers.

If the VPN doesn't offer crypto payments, then I wouldn't be using it.

So it's fine for your VPN to collect a bunch of data unnecessary data on you if they aren't going to use it to invade your privacy? I don't accept that reasoning for a second.

I've been doing this for years.

Yes, sadly, it appears Mozilla has stopped accepting crypto donations.

If you ask me, the article you cited (and the one I left in my quote of your post), is more of a defense of Kape, than an indictment.

For example, the article says:
I would say that Kape distributed malware the same way that theymos promotes the idea that CSW is satoshi -- by hosting a platform in which 3rd parties can post content, even if some people do not like the content.

I am not aware of any evidence that Kape actually created any malware, or that there was malware in any of their software -- the malware was in software distributed on their platform. After the original Napster was shutdown in 2001, there were a various number of torrent-like platforms that allowed people to download what amounted to pirated music (and movies?). Sometimes, people would share malware disguised as a popular song or video -- in these cases, the torrent platform was not distributing the malware. There are various messages in various transactions and in block headers in the bitcoin blockchain, these messages are not being distributed by "bitcoin", nor are they being distributed by the devs who create bitcoin core.
If you are paying via the legacy banking system, you really cannot not give your name and address to the merchant (or prevent it from being easily available to the merchant). If you are paying via crypto, it would be trivial to provide fake details.

If you are using an app on your phone, any potential input can potentially cause problems. Unless you expect someone to cross-reference satellite images of people spinning while looking at their phones to their gyro-sensor data, providing this data is not going to result in any loss of privacy.

It is not possible to reliably convert fiat to coin or coin to fiat via a DEX. You will ultimately need a centralized exchange with a payment provider, or accept an elevated risk of being scammed (by someone who is not the exchange).

Oh please don't get me started with that topic, and if Mozilla really cared about that they should not allow donations in fiat currencies coming from military industrial complex.
They made a mess with starting to support all kinds of shitcoins like doge, instead of just accepting Bitcoin and Lightning Network, if they care so much, and they don't but they just cracked under pressure because they are weak.

I think that healthy dose of skepticism about trusting any company or government system is good, especially if we blindly tell us to trust something without doing our own investigation.
Is it possible to live in today modern world with total privacy and security?
No, but that doesn't mean I should sign up and send my information everywhere without any thinking.
If there is a option for doing the same thing without any kyc, I would always go for that option, even if it means some inconvenience for me.

More people that use DEX exchanges it would be harder for centralized exchanges to ''piss'' on everyone and do whatever they like until regulators twist their arm.

You're sure about that? You are going to take the word of company which deliberately infected its own customers with malware? Pretty sure that wasn't in their terms of service.

And even if you believe that, some of the data they are collecting - name, address, battery level, gyro-sensor data - is in no way useful from a diagnostics point of view and would only ever serve to invade your privacy.

Until they decide that your payment has triggered one of their hidden algorithms and refuse to process it until you complete KYC.

It's the same as using a non-KYC centralized exchange. You are only non-KYCed as long as they allow you to be, and that could end at any time without warning and result in the seizure or loss of your funds if you don't comply. If you want to avoid KYC, you choose a DEX. If you want to avoid KYC, you don't choose BitPay.

The data you cited they collect is likely for diagnostic purposes to address any problems with their service. None of the data they collect can be traced back to the end-user individually.
Yes, I was asked to sign into a BitPay account in order to see/pay the invoice. I am not sure why there is a difference in user experience. It is possible it has something to do with the fact that restaurants tend to deal with a lot of cash, and businesses that deal with a lot of cash tend to be a higher risk of money laundering.

I would point out that BitPay has said, as recently as last month that customers making payments under $3,000 do not need to provide KYC verification, and only need to verify their email address.

I made a post about Kape a few months ago here - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.58547859. As I say in that post, whether or not they were personally responsible for the malware is more or less irrelevant. There are plenty of other very compelling reasons that you should under no circumstances use any of their products or those of their subsidiaries.

They were trying to buy real food.

The site in question is https://www.thuisbezorgd.nl. This is the same company which runs Grubhub in the states, Menulog in Australia/NZ, and Takeaway.com/Just Eat across the rest of Europe. You can try it out yourself (English language version available from the menu in the top right) with fake details. Even an order for under 10 euros requires a KYCed BitPay account.

BitPay is not their only payment provider. In addition to accepting BitPay, they also accept bitcoin from another payment provider, whose identity is unclear (it could be something they host themselves).

Based on some quick research, it does appear that Kape Technologies could be a shady company. Although it is unclear if the malware that was being distributed was created by them or if they were serving as somewhat of an app store without the code being reviewed by the company hosting the app store.

In your example of BitPay requiring KYC for a $10 pizza, was the person trying to buy a gift card to a pizza chain (presumably with the intention of using the gift card to buy pizza)? Or were they trying to buy a pizza from the pizza chain, using BitPay as a payment provider?

The difference is important. Gift cards are similar to cash and have money laundering-related risks that cash has. While it is usually trivial to sell and transfer a gift card, it is not trival to resell a pizza (pizza has a short shelf life once cooked), or a VPN subscription.

Mozilla made a tweet reminding everyone that they accept crypto, and the Twitter trolls lost their collective mind. People don't actually care, they just wanted to virtue signal that they were absolutely disgusted, all while using another platform which is pushing ahead with bitcoin integration (Twitter).

That's different. Tesla's rapidly flipping position is simply Elon Musk trying to manipulate the markets. Mozilla aren't trying to do that (and indeed, do not have the number of followers nor the right followers (i.e. morons) to do this).

I'm confused now; I didn't know whether Mozilla was accepting bitcoin for quite a long time now since 2014. Is it true? If it's, why this has created such chaos now on Twitter. Why didn't create that chaos long ago?

Maybe for the same reason, Tesla started to accept Bitcoin & later stopped. BTW, there's a rumor ongoing that Tesla will accept DOGE now LOL.

PIA has become a VPN to avoid at all costs since it was taken over by the incredibly shady and anti-privacy Kape Technologies, but it is still pretty hilarious that any company with "private" in their name would choose to use BitPay. A symbol of how far they have fallen, I guess.

Perhaps as well if there is a physical product being shipped? It seems you were able to make a donation or sign up for a VPN subscription without being asked for KYC, but you and Reddit users are being asked for KYC for buying hardware wallets or pizza. I don't understand otherwise why they would allow a $2500 donation without KYC but refuse a $10 pizza.

I tried to generate a BitPay invoice while following the checkout process on ledger for what would have been a ~$150 invoice for something that would be shipped to me, and I was asked to login to my BitPay account (or alternatively sign up for a BitPay account). I was however able to generate a ~$10 invoice for a Private Internet Access subscription via BitPay without being asked to login to my BitPay account.

I would conclude that the ability to pay via BitPay without creating a BitPay account, depends, at least in part on the transaction amount. I would expect the threshold will differ depending on various factors, such as the type of merchant the product is being purchased from, and if the transaction is being sent to a charity (eg, if it is a donation). They likely also at least try to track if someone is trying to evade threshold restrictions by repeatedly creating invoices for under the threshold amount.

So a further look on Reddit leads me to believe that BitPay have different rules for donations or for purchases. There are users who, like you, are able to generate Mozilla donation addresses without KYC, while other users are still being met with demands for KYC to order a $10 pizza. It doesn't seem to be geographical, either.

It also seems that the whole backtracking thing has simply been to placate these Twitter trolls and their faux outrage, and they are continuing to actually accept bitcoin.

Google's ever increasing domination of the Internet should be a concern for everyone.

 Besides the negative impact of Dogecoin to there crypto adaption. Mozilla is not much popular nowadays since Google dominate already the browser industry. And also they already stopped accepting cryptocurrency on there foundation after a lots of bashed they received on there tweets.

It appears their "climate commitments" is a way to bribe left-wing interest groups enough so they are not attacked by left-wing radicals.

Mozilla has ~1000 employees, which appears to be remote (even before covid), so I really cannot imagine they ever had any meaningful carbon footprint.

For clarity, I did not actually donate, I was able to generate an invoice for a $2,500 donation, including a payment address and BTC amount to pay. If they provide a payment address, I think it is reasonable to believe they will accept the payment without requiring additional KYC validation.

I was able to repeat the above process just now, and I also just checked the donation link, and they still have crypto as a means to donate. My guess is they wrote that tweet in order to placate the libs.

It doesn't appear they actually paused donations (although they may in the near future stop accepting crypto donations).

The outrage is around the impact that bitcoin has on the ability to implement the green new deal. Without bitcoin, implementing the green new deal would mean rolling blackouts wherever the GND is implemented, but with bitcoin, it would mean that bitcoin consumes all available energy

We should not be surprised for this change of heart from Mozilla, because we know there are a lot of people who really hate Bitcoin and anything related with crypto.
I think this was caused by one of their brainwashed developers or ex-developers Jamie Zawinski who said that cryptocurrencies are planet-incinerating ponzi's  
If he really believes that, than I am afraid there is not much hope for him left:
https://twitter.com/jwz/status/1478022085737803776

This is all ridiculous.

The faux outrage on Twitter was ridiculous. Any excuse to turn a blind eye to fossil fuels and a few billion barrels of oil being dumped in to the oceans, right? That's irrelevant, but as long as we get rid of the handful of bitcoin donations Mozilla were receiving then the planet has been saved! I can continue driving my gas guzzler to the store to buy goods flown in from the other side of the world which have been wrapped in explicable amounts of plastic, all of which I will dump in to a landfill or burn. Let's ignore all the actual evidence that bitcoin uses more green energy than pretty much any other industry in the world and actually incentivizes the development of more green infrastructure.

And Mozilla's response to this has been equally ridiculous. The fact that it seems the opinion of two people who are no longer involved in the project can dictate the direction of the project is very concerning. It also removes a source of funding, which Mozilla seem to desperately need since the number of active Firefox users has been steadily declining over the last few years.

Alternate browsers are all a mess. Chrome is literal spyware and I cannot fathom why millions of people freely install it on their system. You couldn't pay me to use a system with Chrome installed on it. Others like Edge and Safari are not much better. Brave is pretty much controlled by Binance and shares data with Binance, so is another no go if you want any shred of privacy left in your life. Tor is the only viable alternative, but the vast majority of people will refuse to use it for all the usual reasons.

Hopefully the recently announced DuckDuckGo desktop browser will be as good as their mobile one.

Just now, I was able to attempt to donate $2,500 to Mozilla by providing fake personal details. I was not asked to verify any of my information and was provided an address to donate/send to.

If you donate under whatever bitpay's threshold is ($3000?), you do not have to disclose your identity (you have to provide your name, but it is in no way verified), nor create an account.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect to be able to donate 3 separate times, amounts near BitPay's limit before they make you verify your identity in order to donate. If you have that kind of money to donate, it is reasonable to expect the person is in a high tax bracket. So before you have been forced to verify your identity, you will have already given up thousands of dollars in reduced tax liability.

The cost of a VPN is generally in the range of $20-$40 per year. The annual cost of most other privacy measures is similarly nominal.

---

I don't think every donor that disclosed their identity for tax purposes is listed on that website. I would presume people have the option to not make their identity public, but still receive a receipt for their donation so they can receive a deduction for the donation.

In "this blog" post, they mentioned, "Mozilla supporters were asking for it and they just fulfilled that request".

In my eyes, he just lost some of his credibility for generalizing everything and indirectly pointing to BTCitcoin as a "Ponzi grifter"!
^{- I may not be a developer, but I can easily identify if someone is a lunatic or not... In this case, both of the developers in question belong to this category [apart from the possibility of having ulterior motives]!}

The reasons that were mentioned did not seem convincing to me, so I decided to dig a little deeper and see what I found.

Mozilla co-founder Jamie Zawinski tweeted:


also, Peter Linss (designed the Gecko browser engine used in the Firefox browser)


It seems that the problem is either related to a misunderstanding on the part of many of the project developers, or that they have other investments (such as investments in the environment or the banking sector) that may be affected by Mozilla's acceptance of cryptocurrencies.

In general, the societal discussion ("important discussion" about the environmental impact of digital assets) is not intended for ordinary people but rather the founders.

Read more and sources

Well, looks like it didn't age well. According to their latest tweet, they stated that they will review the cryptocurrencies donation over environmental concerns. That's made me wonder what's the reason they accept cryptocurrency donation in the first place if they didn't thoughtfully consider according to their climate goals area. Which make me agree with what NeuroticFish said regarding this and OP, they just taking the opportunity.

It would be good news, but they're using BitPay. It's probably worst possible option to use. Offcourse, for Mozilla it doesn't matter much as long as they're getting donations.
Still, Mozilla is my prefered browser, but no way that I'm going to donate them Bitcoin through BitPay.
Exactly. I didn't even know that donation is tax deductable thing in US. But here is my country, there is no such thing, so, not disclosing KYC details is not stubborn, it's common sense.
If I would want to donate to Mozilla, I'll rather use fiat than Bitcoin through BitPay.

And yet, if you look at the list of large donations for Tails (https://tails.boum.org/sponsors/index.en.html), there are dozens of large anonymous donations, including 300 Monero, 7 Bitcoin, and 50,000 euros. Since donations lower than $1,000 are not listed, there will be likely be hundreds more anonymous donations at these levels.

If you think paying to protect your privacy is stubborn, that's fine. You don't get to decide for everyone else though. People pay for VPNs, VPSs, email hosting, various pieces of software, entirely separate hardware and devices, etc., all in the name of protecting their privacy. If they want to protect their privacy by not claiming a few bucks of tax relief, then that's their prerogative. And of course, there are countries other than US which will have different laws and requirements regarding claiming tax relief.

All these other companies accept anonymous bitcoin and other crypto donations directly. There is no reason that Mozilla can't do the same.

Again, if you don't disclose your KYC information, you are giving up what could amount to ~50% of the value of your donation in the form of a tax deduction. So if there was a way to donate to them without disclosing your KYC information, doing so would effectively mean you are paying 50% of your donation in the name of "privacy".

To be frank, if you are complaining about the entity that you disclose your KYC information, in order to claim a tax deduction, or if you are wanting to not disclose your KYC information (which will result in you not receiving 50% of your donation back), you are just being stubborn.

BTW, I would also be hesitant to support the tor project in general, as IMO, it really just gives people a false sense of privacy.

Donations to all the entities I listed above are tax deductible as well. Tor provides an option to give your name alongside your donation to receive an acknowledgement document from them for tax purposes (or to donate anonymously if you wish). Tails give an email address you can contact to receive a donation receipt if you want one. If I want to claim tax deduction on my donation, then I'd be much happier giving only my name to the Tor project than I would giving my full KYC info and scans of documents to BitPay.

Tor and Tails both accept Monero, and both have offices in the US. It can be done if there is the will to do it, but I agree with NeuroticFish that Mozilla seem to just be looking for the easiest solution. Disappointing.

My rough guess: while accepting Monero makes total sense for a privacy-focused entity, I'm guessing that it's just going to be a total pain in the arse for the Mozilla Foundation. You know, the authorities and stuff. As far as I know their main office is still in the US.

Donations to Mozilla are tax-deductible. In order to claim a deduction on your tax return, you will generally need to give identifying information to the entity you are donating to (or their agent), so they can produce the documentation you need to support the donation in the event you are audited. I doubt many people, privacy-conscious or otherwise, are going to forgo a tax deduction so they can incrementally improve their privacy.

---

This is also not new, nor is it news. According to their FAQ, they have been accepting bitcoin since November 2019.

I tend to agree with about reply above, it's a good move for them.
I remember before that Mozilla has announced accepting Bitcoin in a donation and that was in November last year and now they have 4 cryptocurrencies that can be used in sending donations.

I don't see any especially on that news because Bitcoin adoption has already been announced, so now they are accepting doge that has a low market cap and low transaction.

Anyway, that's good news.

You are completely right.

And about the BitPay route: my take is that they didn't care that much. Way too many still don't care about bitcoin to HODL or take care to handle it themselves. For them it was an opportunity - make some waves, get some more (fiat) funds (and customers) - while showing support to the new technology. Maybe someday they'll do the next steps too.

Well, that's true to an extent. However, if I really want to donate to Mozilla and I already own some Monero, then it is fairly easy to almost completely anonymously convert that Monero in to Bitcoin and to send it to a Bitcoin address. That becomes almost impossible when a unnecessary third party intermediary requires you to make an account and verify your identity with them first, though.

I really don't understand why they have gone down the BitPay route. If you look at other software, sites, and services which privacy conscious users might use - Tor, Tails, Qubes, EFF, Prism Break, etc. - all simply provide a donation address. Mozilla are bigger than all of these. There is no way they don't have someone who could set up a BTCPay server or similar.

Business as usual. No matter the name under it. I didn't even expect such a response. But you're right. I can't say more than "Morons, morons everywhere"


I may sound a bit harsh/extreme, but some privacy conscious users may even wait for Monero.

This. The Twitter thread is full of replies of people saying they will move to Chrome because Mozilla are endorsing cryptocurrencies. If a browser which you can use to protect your privacy endorsing a currency which you can use to protect your privacy is enough to make you use actual literal spyware instead, then apart from being a moron you really don't care if they are using a third party or a self hosted solution. I wonder why all these Twitter morons who are going to switch browser over this haven't also switched social network, since you know, Twitter endorses Bitcoin now. Lol.

It's a shame, though, because Mozilla will get no donations from privacy conscious users until they stop using BitPay.

For what it's worth, that's not the case with their "FAQ/Wiki" page

I'm having mixed feelings about this... They didn't even bother to generate a proper donation button from BitPay ^[SMH]: Screenshot

That clown is going to have the time of his life when he returns from his short break.

Elon would be happy to donate Doge for them.
even the Linux developers page actaully doesn't have some of the BTC donation options. they are the first that i thought would go all-in for crypto since they are the community with so much concern for privacy. but i'm guessing they are avoiding disagreements from sponsors just like Mozilla.

mozilla team could really run a full node, have a wallet of their own for LN, it's not gonna be hard for them to catch up since many people uses firefox.

Well I guess we know one person who is going to be happy about this...and his name is Elon Musk.
They just got a new loyal fan on Firefox browser, until something else draws his attention.

All this years and just now they come up with an idea to accept Bitcoin and other crypto donations  
Maybe that is one of the reasons why google chrome have huge market share compared to firefox browser, but I still like them more than chrome.
Instead of using Bitpay they should start using BTCPayServer, run their own node, and accept donations on their own terms.  

Yeah, just I expect they only care of fiat, which BitPay will give them without any complications.
And since the average Joe doesn't know nor care about all privacy implications, I feel like this is a manifest of trust in Bitcoin, hence an extra point for Bitcoin. So I agree with OP: it's a good move.

They're receiving so much hate in the Tweet replies because of this lmao.

Don't read too much into this. I'm guessing it's highly likely they did this to potentially get more impressions from retweets from angry Bitcoiners.

We have more adoptions here:


They talked about Dogecoin first.

Source ---> https://twitter.com/mozilla/status/1476951030638260225?s=20


The downside is that they accept payments using BitPay, I don't know but I think Mozilla is big enough to have developers running a full node of the company.
Overall, it's a good move.