I’d like to be clear that docs are the best I can offer, but feel free to ask for clarity on the details and I can try explain it better.

thanks for your feedback there. id like to share my thoughts and observations on your points.

its a great personal shame for me to go in the close-source direction. those links to the open source repos, will remain open source because its demonstrates the unique concept around how it work. if people are interested in how it works and dont want to trust me (and you shouldnt!)… the open source repositories demo the functionality and also have a reasonable ampount of documentation around it. i had deluded myself that if i opensource something unique like this, i would be able to get open-source funding. i have no experience in the matter, i was just working on a sideproject to begin with (and its arguably still a sideproject). i put focus on transparency, communication and documentation. the project still gets called a scam/slop whether is open/close source.

the app itself is pure client-side javascript so i dont see how i can offer a managed service.

while i have a “decent” amount of documentation on the project, i dont expect most people to take a look. that was all intended for transparency when seeking open source funding. open source cybersecurity seems prohibitively expensive wheather you’re big-tech or not. my personal experience in seeking an audit: https://www.reddit.com/r/CyberSecurityAdvice/comments/1su8lir/security_audit_feedback_from_radically_open

id like to put things into perspective here:

As others have pointed out privacy without transparency (in the way of making the underlying code open source) isnt a guarantee of privacy its a weak promise at best

https://github.com/positive-intentions/chat the core concept is demonstrated here. its a full functional p2p messaging with focus on client-side cryptography. i’ll be keeping it open source. the key different is that the open source version doesnt have as nice a user experience… if a nice user experience make all the difference, then i dont think people are looking at it objectively.

removing openness in its entirety isn’t a solution privacy focused people will accept

i agree; and just to be clear im not removing openness in its entirety. its open-source to demonstrate how it works. if you want a secure open-source p2p encrypted messaging… you have that… it simply isnt going to be the best experience i can offer. if you want to fork the repo and try iron-out the creases yourself? be my guest (its pretty complicated, so feel free to reachout for clarity). perhaps im being naive, but i dont think any amount of vibecoding is going to make the open-source version competative to the close-source version.

marketing

this is very difficult for me. no idea what im doing in marketing and my candid communication doesnt seem well recieved. especially in the cryptography and cybersecurity communities. no idea how to do marketing beyond posting on reddit and lemmy. i have been spending most of my time in improving the project and i can do that forever… but i shouldnt. its something i need to work on.

i think i have offered a great deal of transparency, honesty and communication about how the app works. i expect it will be tough to sell “secure, but paid for messaging app”, but it seems the only logical option. this isnt my first rodeo; open-source is not a gamble that will pay off.

“testing and demo purposes only”

the code and docs are provided so you dont need to trust me.

I know! I tried everything I could think of.