Pocketbase lost its funding from FLOSS fund

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Funding situation and framing

  • The “lost its funding” title is contested. Commenters emphasize that:
    • The original arrangement was via GitHub Sponsors.
    • Due to regulatory issues, FLOSS/fund can’t currently pay through GitHub, Liberapay, OpenCollective, etc.
    • FLOSS/fund offered to pay by wire transfer from India, with tax and treaty paperwork.
    • The Pocketbase maintainer then chose to decline under the new terms.
  • Some argue it’s misleading to say the project “lost funding” or to imply fault by FLOSS/fund when the maintainer voluntarily refused the revised route.

Paperwork, KYC, and risk

  • FLOSS/fund’s email (quoted in the thread) requests:
    • Tax residency certificate, “no permanent establishment in India” declaration, India Form 10F, a service agreement, and an invoice.
  • Many see this as normal cross‑border tax/withholding and double‑tax‑treaty compliance, likening it to W‑8BEN‑style forms.
  • Others find it invasive or risky, especially sending sensitive documents over email to an overseas entity and government they don’t trust; they argue the maintainer is reasonable to walk away if it feels unsafe or too burdensome.
  • Debate over KYC:
    • Some claim every substantial international wire now implies KYC/AML checks.
    • Others note they’ve done cross‑border wires with no extra forms, suggesting thresholds and prior banking KYC matter.

Views on FLOSS/fund and India

  • Several commenters point out FLOSS/fund has already disbursed sizable grants to well‑known OSS projects, seeing it as legitimate and constrained by Indian regulation rather than “dangerous and unethical.”
  • Others argue that India’s strict controls, corruption, and perceived authoritarianism justify caution about exposing personal data and tax status to Indian authorities.
  • A political back‑and‑forth ensues:
    • One side calls the current Indian government dictatorial/segregationist and hostile to privacy and speech.
    • The other side defends the regime, disputes that framing, and notes many countries have equally intrusive financial/tax controls.
  • Some stress that even if one’s home country is also authoritarian, adding a second jurisdiction still increases risk.

Pocketbase sustainability and features

  • Many praise Pocketbase as smooth, beginner‑friendly, and ideal for small web projects; some express disappointment that this funding path is blocked/declined.
  • Others note the maintainer has never implied financial desperation; if the cost in privacy and bureaucracy outweighs ~$30k for them, that’s their prerogative.
  • There’s concern about the “single maintainer” bus factor and desire for more stable funding without compromising the project’s “single‑binary, no‑build” philosophy.

Postgres, Supabase, and alternatives

  • Some would adopt Pocketbase widely in corporate settings if it supported Postgres, since ops teams already manage Postgres HA/backup/DR.
  • Replies suggest using Supabase or similar “Postgres‑backed BaaS” instead, but:
    • Critics say those stacks are much heavier (many services/containers) and not as simple as a single binary.
    • Others argue that’s inherent to more scalable, feature‑rich platforms.
  • Side discussion mentions SQLite’s growing viability with tools like Litestream and custom replication efforts.

Alternatives and workarounds for funding

  • Suggestions include:
    • Using USDC/crypto to sidestep traditional wire friction, by converting international payments into domestic transfers via exchanges.
    • Partnering with foreign nonprofits (e.g., SPI, NLnet) as intermediaries to handle local compliance and disbursement.
  • These are speculative within the thread; no clear resolution on whether FLOSS/fund could or would adopt such models.

Meta: controversy and expectations

  • Some see this as a mundane situation—fund offers money with added compliance, recipient decides it’s not worth it.
  • Others think publicly characterizing FLOSS/fund as unethical, and framing the outcome as “lost funding,” is disproportionate and fuels unnecessary drama.
  • A number of commenters insist both positions are legitimate:
    • It’s normal for a fund to require formalities.
    • It’s also valid for a maintainer to decline if they don’t trust the process or jurisdiction.