kvinogradov

We explicitly explained to the IRS that our endowment plans to make awards and grants to individual OSS developers and maintainers in the US and other eligible countries. Given our limited target scope — not just any software, but critical nonprofit independent OSS — it was acceptable, and the IRS approved our 501(c)(3) status. And we plan to operate within what is described in our application.

The endowment model is complementary to direct donations, which many of OSE donors make. For example, I did this a lot: https://kvinogradov.com/algo-sponsors. Some people do this privately, and the largest public case among our donors seems to be https://ziglang.org/news/300k-from-mitchellh/

It requires choosing projects, and most people don't have time for this.

But the main problem is that such funding is simply not sustainable: corporate annual budgets for OSS are volatile, and individual donations are extremely volatile. It is not great for the critical infrastructure we all rely on.

The Open Source Endowment enables truly sustainable funding and also decreases the entry barrier for new OSS donors because it does not require choosing a specific project. A la buying the S&P 500 ETF instead of stock picking.

> Congratulations, you managed to pick out the two projects in the set that make it merely "mostly" (instead of "entirely") frivolous.

Out of curiosity, which founding donors specifically would qualify under your criteria for a "serious" project? If the founders of HashiCorp, Elastic, ClickHouse, Supabase, Nginx, and curl seem like a mostly frivolous band to you...

We don't require a membership to participate in GitHub discussions, but it is required to be invited to closed events and to be part of the OSE governance.

The global average salary of a software engineer is $5,906/month, and the OSE membership is $83/month ($1,000/year), so it would require donating ~1.4% of gross income. This aligns fully with the 1-2% of income that an average U.S. individual donates every year, and we are targeting more senior engineers, not the average ones.

So it is affordable for our target audience, but requires some personal commitment. To be efficient in the long term, an endowment must be managed by people who have skin in the game.

It would also be irresponsible to have people who can't or don't want to personally donate $1,000 to our cause, or people outside of the tech industry, managing a multi-million-dollar community fund focused on solving a pretty niche industry problem. Otherwise, the endowment ends up being as efficient as a typical government!

It can be a recurring grant if a target OSS project continues to be highly valuable, but risky. When it loses value or is derisked (e.g. by extra funding), then grant priority will naturally move to another project.

Thanks for sharing the context, it's really helpful. For full transparency, I am not a high-net-worth individual either, and I also grew up dirt-poor and now am a modestly successful 34-year-old tech dude.

We are not building yet another HNWI-focused nonprofit, but a grassroots community endowment. It targets a donor like you – a regular tech industry worker who can support things they truly care about with a $1-100k donation. I think many developers love open source, don't they?

We intentionally targeted launching the endowment with a $0.5-1m initial size and many donors because:

1) It is not attractive for regular donors to support a project that is heavily funded by HNWIs. Let's say if I were able to donate to the Gates Foundation, it would be like peeing in the ocean and wouldn't matter. However, I am eager to support projects with peers among donors because it makes a difference. And that's the way to make OSE scalable and outlive all its founders.

2) It is important to maintain high decentralization of funding, which enables good community governance and accountability. Having a few outsized donors at the start kills it. Our donor Herfindahl–Hirschman index is ~1800 now.

3) As a VC (maybe a bit old school), I think that it is responsible to limit funding size at very early stages and grow it later together with achieved milestones and decreasing risks. It helps to build more efficient organizations.

Just take a look at https://endowment.dev/community - we obviously targeted notable founders at the start, but now it is a healthy mix with many everyday developers. You're welcome to join them.

Of course, OSE will look for large donations. But the goal is to raise them in balance with growing a community of smaller donors, maintaining decentralization and scalability.

There are areas where we experiment and take risks: raising the first-ever endowment for open source, making it very lean and digital-first, relying on bottom-up funding and governance instead of large corporate donors, etc.

But all other areas should be as low-risk as possible — like accounting, legal, and investment management of a community endowment fund. We are exploring a few ideas on how to grow the fund faster than the market without increasing its risk profile, but they are complementary to a very conservative core strategy.

Besides OSE, I am a full-time VC — that's the area where investors are bold and invest in off-norm opportunities, but it lies on the totally opposite side of the investment risk spectrum. And directly mixing them does not seem like a good idea.

Software has its own lifecycle, and the funding should not stick indefinitely to a specific project. Meanwhile, our grant format might evolve into some type of limited tenured positions for maintainers, which support the most critical yet risky projects. But this target scope should be dynamic and adapt to the market—global consumption of OSS; otherwise, we may end up maintaining COBOL in 2100...

The best long-term protection from fraud and abuse are aligned incentives through skin in the game. That’s why we legally require all people in governance to be Members ($1000+/year donation). This is an important topic, and here you can find more context on this: https://kvinogradov.com/osendowment/

“super minimal that requires less management and operating costs” - that’s exactly our current setup, and always will be the target!

Now OSE has no paid employees - the team is 100% volunteers. Its Board Directors and the Executive Director are required to personally donate $1000+/year. Operating costs are close to zero.

As organization evolves there might be higher operating costs, but our commitment to keep them as low as possible.

Now the Open Source Endowment is a very small organization that starts with ~$5k microgrants. It is not enough for a living but still should help maintainers not only financially but also by allocating attention.

As it grows bigger, the grant size will also grow. One can help with this by donating and bringing in new donors!

OSE has a diverse community of donors, and most of them are not even close to that net worth level. Around 75% of our donors contributed in $1-200k range. We think that every donation matters, and hugely respect everybody supporting open source.

May I ask what it’s the right share of net worth one should donate to OSS? And what’s this share in your personal case?

Sure - we donate our own money to this endowment fund and carefully choose partners who have a solid reputation and can deliver maximum efficiency. I don't think we will have any of them in former socialist countries,except for those based in Berlin :)

Exactly! A few more considerations on gov support of OSS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47171562

The explanation is simple — nobody can predict exact annual returns, and they tend to fluctuate. We aim to spend at least 5% per year on OSS grants and need to decide if we can spend more on them or should reinvest based on specific annual results. And target earnings should overcome inflation.

OSE won't give money for commercial product development - it is dedicated to supporting existing highly-used _nonprofit_ and independent OSS. Some specific examples are at https://endowment.dev/faq/#grants

I am one of https://wikimediaendowment.org/benefactors (donated years ago), and now I am totally unhappy with what is happening with Wikipedia. It has been an important lesson learned.

To keep a nonprofit efficient and impactful, it is crucial for its governance to have skin in the game; otherwise, there will be no long-term alignment of interests. More details on why and how we implement this at the Open Source Endowment: https://kvinogradov.com/osendowment

It is great to see that governments are also funding open source, but I don't think it is sustainable and scalable because:

1) In every country, most politicians and citizens have no clue about the problem we are discussing here. Thus OSS won't have a meaningful share in the gov budget.

2) If an OSS-advanced country funds open source now (like Germany - kudos to them!), it might easily change later with a new administration (like the support of nuclear plants in Germany).

3) If a very stable OSS-advanced country perpetually support open source, that creates a freerider problem - nowadays it seems that German taxpayers are supporting OSS, but others do not and unlikely will.

Meanwhile, private funding is sustainable (endowment model) and scalable because of aligned incentives — people voluntarily join, not taxed.

Here are more details on the story and thinking behind key features of the Open Source Endowment: https://kvinogradov.com/osendowment

There are strict regulatory rules for 501c3 nonprofits (for instance - no private benefits for nonprofit insiders) and guidelines on how to implement them, for instance, via CoI policy, which we have: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/form-1023-purpose-...

The thing is that our endowment is focused on the "old" non-commercializable OSS projects, while VC is about "new" and commercializable stuff. The irony here is that these two things in my life lie on opposite sides of the spectrum—both in scope and risk tolerance.

We all - the OSE donors - are donating personal savings to make this work, and are directly interested to make this org as efficient as possible. Having skin in the game is best way to keep such nonprofits accountable. There is no leftovers or fees - all investment income from donations goes to open source, except for minimized operating expenses (e.g. accounting). It is run by the team of volunteers without salaries, and we require $1000+/year donations from all directors of this org.

OSE actually has it on its roadmap: https://github.com/osendowment/foundation/blob/main/roadmap....

Most likely we won't create our own subsidiaries, but will partner with local nonprofits (suggestions are welcome), which could make donations tax-deductible for UK/EU residents.

As for grants, we are totally fine with supporting European open source maintainers now. OSE has a global scope, limited only by the available payment infra and US regulations.

Not the former VC, but an active venture capitalist: https://kvinogradov.com. I earn money by investing in open source / AI / infra software startups, and I spend money by donating to nonprofit open source projects :-)

Also, it is not a VC who run things, but the team which consists of people with diverse backgrounds (founders/executives/devs x OSS/nonprofit) and the donor community (which everybody can join): https://endowment.dev/community/

What are your specific concerns?

By the way, only 1 out of 6 core team members is based in SV.

"Preseed round" is just the small funding when the project is a very early stage. We expect to raise more funding when the endowment matures. There is no ROI, it is a pure charity.

The curl guy is one of OSE founding donors, together with the terraform guy who recently released an open source trust management system to help with AI-generated crap: https://github.com/mitchellh/vouch

I think that AI eventually will solve technical maintenance problems, but not human-related ones: limited attention, trust, motivation issues. And we are going to support mostly "old" projects everybody relies on, not some new AI-gen stuff.

Consider this as a nonprofit startup that has just raised a pre-seed round. The current size of $700K is indeed immaterial, as our plan is to scale it significantly in the coming years.

The closest real-world comparable to what we are building is the Wikimedia Endowment, whose former Director is among OSE’s advisors. Like Wikimedia, we aim to be supported not only by large donations but also by contributions from large community — in our case, 150M+ GitHub users.

Our target audience is diverse - from highly successful founders to everyday developers. The Open Source Endowment is prepared to accept donations in both cash and stock from these groups.

While 5% of equity may be too much, 1% seems achievable. I am personally ready to commit 1% of the carried interest from my own VC fund to the endowment.

It is a community-driven initiative - we encourage developers to join as donors and help to shape it. Also, our model from the very start is about deep layers of infrastructure: https://endowment.dev/endowment/#model.

Finally, I would not say that, let's say, founders of Nginx and curl are not interested in critical infra or don't understand it :)

Over the last few years I've talked with hundreds of people in the dev community, and almost everyone shared the same concern: there's no sustainable funding for critical OSS maintenance, and without it the modern world runs on an increasingly fragile foundation.

I have personal experience with university endowments, and at some point noticed that the open source world is remarkably similar to a top research university. They share the same reputation-based culture and functions — collaborative creation of IP as a public good, educating each other within thematic clusters, and commercializing only a small fraction of what they produce.

For universities, humanity has just two sustainable funding models: public spending or private endowments. Government support won't work for OSS at scale — it's too globally decentralized. And yet nobody had built an OSS-focused endowment before. After understanding why, I started building one together with other OSS folks.

Today we're publicly launching the Open Source Endowment — a community-driven endowment fund dedicated to sustainably funding maintainers of the most critical open source projects. All donations are invested in a low-risk portfolio, and only the investment income (~5%/year) is used for grants, making it independent of annual budgets and tech market volatility.

We recently received US 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charity status. The fund is at ~$700K, formed by 60+ founding donors — including founders of HashiCorp, Elastic, ClickHouse, Supabase, Vue.js, Pydantic, Nginx, Gatsby, n8n, and curl. Everyone is welcome to join them and participate in governance.

There's no perfect model for distributing OSS grants. Our approach: make it open, data-driven, measurable, and developed by people with skin in the game — donors. I tested this by personally donating $5K to 800+ Python projects in Dec 2024 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42312469). We're now looking to grow our donor community and together finalize the first model for grants in Q2 2026.

This is a pure community charity, and there are two things I'd love from HN:

1) Join as a donor — any amount — and help make OSE the most efficient long-term funding solution for OSS maintainers

2) Nominate OSS projects you think are critically underfunded on the Funding page at endowment.dev