Around the same time, In mid-December 2025, I had begun developing a proof-of-concept Nostr web client based on vinney...axkl's nostr-hypermedia, called Hyper. While working on Hyper's outbox implementation, I ran into quite a few issues with relay connectivity, particularly with popular relays like nostr.band which unbeknownst to me (and seemingly much of the Nostr community) had been essentially abandoned. I spent quite a bit of time checking Nostr for other user reports on nostr.band's issues, and even more, troubleshooting my implementation; time which could have been much better spent on developing my project instead.The goal of Trusted Relays is simple: give users the ability to see if a relay is reliable and safe to use, and provide developers with the ability to surface that information to their users easily.

If you follow my other work, I have been developing Signet, a new take on remote signers originally forked from . As of version 1.8.0, released today, relay trust scores are integrated into Signet so you can catch issues before they become a problem, a feature which is particularly important to determine if new NostrConnect sign-ins could be problematic. I forwarded some information to greenart7c3 for review, so maybe we'll get to see this in gold-standard signers like Amber (and of course, others) as well.

I won't dive into the specifics of the trust score methodology here for brevity, but we break down scores with three simple categories: reliability, quality, and accessibility, each carrying their own weight, and each having several subcategories also carrying their own weight. The final score is determined through a simple calculation which can be configured by anyone choosing to run their on instance of Trusted Relays:

Trust Score = (40% × Reliability) + (35% × Quality) + (25% × Accessibility)

If you would like full details on the NIP as well as the current algorithm, feel free to read the documentation on the Github repo. All relays are probed once per hour, and trust assertions (kind 30385, if you want to poke around for those events) are published immediately after and tracked for 90 days on the site to provide a history of trust scores.If you are a developer and want to include relay trust scores, there's plenty of documentation to get you started in the repo, but the simplest way to get scores is to call:

https://trustedrelays.xyz/api/score?url=wss://relay.nip46.com (replace with your relay of choice of course)

This will get you basic information like scores, score categories, online status, URL, last score timestamp, etc. Full attestation data can be ingested by replacing "score" with "relay" in the link above. Currently, rate limiting is set to 60 requests per minute with no token requirements, and no cost (ever). If the API starts getting abused by bots, I'll consider a new approach, but there still never be any costs associated.

This is still very much an early implementation of what I hope to accomplish with Trusted Relay Assertions so the current implementation still gathers most of its data from ingesting NIP-11 and NIP-66 data. Within the next few weeks, I'll continue implementing some of the remaining ideas such as NIP-32 reporting for relays, user login for additional web of trust features, and more. Remember that the relays currently have only about 2 or 3 days of history so while I am confident of the current results, the more data the system has, the better the results will be (hence the "confidence" column in the reports). Eventually, I would love to see dozens or hundreds of instances of Trusted Relays running and consuming each other's data to create a more distributed system, but this has not been implemented yet (soon tm!).

Happy to hear thoughts and ideas, and of course, feel free to post issues and pull requests on the Github repo If you want to donate to the project, just zap me on Nostr.

What happens when we let the browser do the job it was built to do?

Instead of shipping a miniature application runtime to every user, we send plain HTML. Instead of forcing the browser to act as a thick client, we keep it thin and let the server describe the entire application state through links and forms.

This approach may look outdated in 2025, but it gives developers more power by removing client-side complexity. It also brings Nostr closer to its cypherpunk foundations by building simple systems, writing inspectable code, avoiding brittle abstractions, and minimizing the need for trust.

What Is Hypermedia / HATEOAS?

Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State (HATEOAS) demands a shift in mindset for anyone who grew up inside client-heavy architectures. It replaces custom client-side logic with server-driven links and forms, and challenges developers to instead rely on the browser's native strengths.

HATEOAS works through some straightforward rules:

• The server sends data and tells the client what actions it can take next.
• Every state transition exists as a link or a form, just like the early web.
• The client no longer invents a router, manages state containers, or synchronizes models. It simply follows hyperlinks.

Modern SPAs vs. HATEOAS

In order to understand the difference between typical Nostr web clients and what we are working on with Nostr-hypermedia, let's take a look at how the two models work.

Single Page Apps (SPA) model:

• The client owns the application logic.
• The server only returns data.
• Both sides must stay perfectly version-aligned.
• Creates complexity and is prone to breaking.

HATEOAS model:

• The server defines the current state and every allowed transition.
• The client behaves like a simple hypermedia agent.
• Browsers already understand this model. They natively handle links, forms, navigation, caching, and history.

Why Hypermedia Fits Nostr

Nostr embraces radical minimalism with tiny event structures, stateless relays, and a loose, schema-light design. This design gives clients absolute freedom to interpret and innovate. A hypermedia client fits this ethos completely:

• Minimal client: No bundlers, heavy JS payloads, or toolchains. Hypermedia ideas can be integrated gradually even with React or other frameworks.
• Intelligent server: Renders views and exposes actions as plain HTML.
• Universal compatibility: Works on any browser, even with JavaScript turned off.
• Simpler code paths: Write less code, avoid more bugs, and eliminate entire categories of assumptions.

Nostr-hypermedia offers the web what Nostr offers messaging:

• A small set of composable rules without unnecessary layers.
• You never create a node_modules folder.
• You skip dependency forests and transient build errors.
• You don’t wait for hot reloading.
• You write HTML and ship it.

The Cypherpunk Connection

Cypherpunks don't just write code, we write auditable code. Hypermedia fits that culture naturally:

• View-source verification: Anyone can read every interaction without special tools.
• No third-party JS CDNs: No silent updates, trackers, or supply-chain surprises.
• Support for constrained environments: Works on Tor, text browsers, old hardware, and locked-down networks.
• Privacy by default: No analytics scripts, fingerprinting, or background telemetry.

Running a self-hosted hypermedia Nostr client feels like running a Gopher server (I know, just me) or a Bitcoin node, not a modern web application. That’s exactly the feeling we aim for.

Practical Benefits

As you change your mindset to align with HATEOAS philosophy, you see the benefits immediately. Plain HTML works with screen readers, keyboard navigation, and assistive tech without ARIA puzzles or framework quirks. First paint is the final paint. A hypermedia approach avoids hydration delays, JS waterfalls, and background CPU drain. Since we just rely on HTML, our app works without worrying about CDN failures, or outdated dependencies. Finally, HTML ages well, while frameworks do. Have you ever had to update a Rails or React project between major framework revisions? Hypermedia gives your project a long life with minimal maintenance.

Of Course, There Are Tradeoffs

Hypermedia delivers a lot, but it doesn't solve every problem:

• Real-time updates require either page refreshes or small, intentional sprinkles of JavaScript.
• Some interactions feel slower without optimistic UI techniques.
• The server handles more work because it manages transitions.
• Highly interactive applications—design tools, spreadsheets, games—don’t fit this model.

Some Final Words

The web already shipped with an application protocol: HTML. For decades, we kept stacking abstractions on top of it while trying to mold the browser into a desktop operating system, but the original model still works beautifully when we let it.

We are building a hypermedia Nostr client to rediscover that simplicity. In a world full of opaque, bloated, over-engineered software, choosing simplicity becomes a way to reclaim autonomy.

If this resonates with you, reach out, and let’s try a new approach to developing Nostr clients that aligns with the core ideology of our cypherpunk roots.

Let's begin by defining a couple of things:

Nostr is a decentralized, censorship-resistance protocol whose current biggest use case is social media (think Twitter/X). Instead of relying on company servers, it relies on relays that anyone can spin up and own their own content. Its use cases are much bigger, though, and this article is hosted on my own relay, using my own Nostr relay as an example.

Zap is a tip or donation denominated in sats (small units of Bitcoin) sent from one user to another. This is generally done directly over the Lightning Network but is increasingly using Cashu tokens. For the sake of this discussion, how you transmit/receive zaps will be irrelevant, so don't worry if you don't know what Lightning or Cashu are.

If we look at how users engage with posts and follows/followers on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, etc., it becomes evident that traditional social media thrives on engagement farming. The more outrageous a post, the more likely it will get a reaction. We see a version of this on more visual social platforms like YouTube and TikTok that use carefully crafted thumbnail images to grab the user's attention to click the video. If you'd like to dive deep into the psychology and science behind social media engagement, let me know, and I'd be happy to follow up with another article.

In this user engagement model, a user is given the option to comment or like the original post, or share it among their followers to increase its signal. They receive no value from engaging with the content aside from the dopamine hit of the original experience or having their comment liked back by whatever influencer they provide value to. Ad revenue flows to the content creator. Clout flows to the content creator. Sales revenue from merch and content placement flows to the content creator. We call this a linear economy -- the idea that resources get created, used up, then thrown away. Users create content and farm as much engagement as possible, then the content is forgotten within a few hours as they move on to the next piece of content to be farmed.

What if there were a simple way to give value back to those who engage with your content? By implementing some value-for-value model -- a circular economy. Enter zaps.

Unlike traditional social media platforms, Nostr does not actively use algorithms to determine what content is popular, nor does it push content created for active user engagement to the top of a user's timeline. Yes, there are "trending" and "most zapped" timelines that users can choose to use as their default, but these use relatively straightforward engagement metrics to rank posts for these timelines.

That is not to say that we may not see clients actively seeking to refine timeline algorithms for specific metrics. Still, the beauty of having an open protocol with media that is controlled solely by its users is that users who begin to see their timeline gamed towards specific algorithms can choose to move to another client, and for those who are more tech-savvy, they can opt to run their own relays or create their own clients with personalized algorithms and web of trust scoring systems.

Zaps enable the means to create a new type of social media economy in which creators can earn for creating content and users can earn by actively engaging with it. Like and reposting content is relatively frictionless and costs nothing but a simple button tap. Zaps provide active engagement because they signal to your followers and those of the content creator that this post has genuine value, quite literally in the form of money—sats.

I have seen some comments on Nostr claiming that removing likes and reactions is for wealthy people who can afford to send zaps and that the majority of people in the US and around the world do not have the time or money to zap because they have better things to spend their money like feeding their families and paying their bills. While at face value, these may seem like valid arguments, they, unfortunately, represent the brainwashed, defeatist attitude that our current economic (and, by extension, social media) systems aim to instill in all of us to continue extracting value from our lives.

Imagine now, if those people dedicating their own time (time = money) to mine pity points on social media would instead spend that time with genuine value creation by posting content that is meaningful to cultural discussions. Imagine if, instead of complaining that their posts get no zaps and going on a tirade about how much of a victim they are, they would empower themselves to take control of their content and give value back to the world; where would that leave us? How much value could be created on a nascent platform such as Nostr, and how quickly could it overtake other platforms?

Other users argue about user experience and that additional friction (i.e., zaps) leads to lower engagement, as proven by decades of studies on user interaction. While the added friction may turn some users away, does that necessarily provide less value? I argue quite the opposite. You haven't made a few sats from zaps with your content? Can't afford to send some sats to a wallet for zapping? How about using the most excellent available resource and spending 10 seconds of your time to leave a comment? Likes and reactions are valueless transactions. Social media's real value derives from providing monetary compensation and actively engaging in a conversation with posts you find interesting or thought-provoking. Remember when humans thrived on conversation and discussion for entertainment instead of simply being an onlooker of someone else's life?

If you've made it this far, my only request is this: try only zapping and commenting as a method of engagement for two weeks. Sure, you may end up liking a post here and there, but be more mindful of how you interact with the world and break yourself from blind instinct. You'll thank me later.

The Czech National Bank has signaled a gradual acceptance of digital assets as part of its broader monetary policy recalibration with changes to how capital gains taxes are handled on Bitcoin and a possible adoption by its central bank into its reserves stockpile. Simultaneously, El Salvador- once the poster child for Bitcoin as legal tender- has fine-tuned its policy framework at the behest of the WEF to no longer accept Bitcoin as legal tender. Meanwhile, several U.S. states have introduced bills to establish official Bitcoin reserves, and many are under active consideration. See Bitcoin Laws for a full breakdown of where these bills stand. Let's explore the pros of governments adopting strategic Bitcoin reserves.

Bitcoiners have long argued that the ultimate endorsement of Bitcoin comes when even the most established state institutions place their trust in it. Recent moves by several U.S. states—where lawmakers are proposing legislation to create official Bitcoin reserves—lend credence to this argument. When state governments start to codify the creation of a Bitcoin reserve, it signals that even entities steeped in traditional financial orthodoxy now recognize Bitcoin as a viable, strategic asset. For these states, it is imperative to accumulate hard assets like Bitcoin in reserves as they have no control over the monetary supply and, therefore, can suffer from debasement just as much as any citizen or sovereign nation not in control of their currency.

Suppose you have kept up with recent news that the Czech national bank was considering holding a considerable portion of their assets in Bitcoin. In that case, you understand the paradigm shift we are seeing. Banks are becoming less cautious in handling digital assets in a stark department, compared to previous dismissals of cryptocurrencies as genuine assets. While it is true that European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde wields considerable influence on monetary policy in Europe and may have put a temporary damper on the Czech central bank's aspirations for now (See Reuters), it should be evident that in the words of some Bitcoiners, "nothing stops this train." For Bitcoiners, such shifts validate the claim that Bitcoin's decentralized, algorithmic structure outperforms fiat systems, which are vulnerable to political manipulation and unchecked inflation. The Czech president's signing into law a bill removing capital gains tax from all Bitcoin held for at least three years proves that even those at the highest levels of policy creation are beginning to lose control of the narrative.

This state endorsement is more than symbolic. It is a strategic vote of confidence in Bitcoin's underlying technology—its transparent, immutable ledger and deflationary nature. When lawmakers and regulators in the United States start to invest public resources in Bitcoin, it undermines the decades-old narrative that only traditional assets like gold or oil are worthy of state backing. Instead, it repositions Bitcoin as an asset not just with a future but of the future. It can enhance and even replace all other existing reserve assets, lending further proof of Bitcoin as a store of value.

Bitcoin's capped supply is at the core of its appeal—only 21 million coins will ever exist. Bitcoiners assert that this scarcity is fundamental to Bitcoin's value proposition. A strategic Bitcoin reserve at any governmental level would effectively lock away a significant portion of the circulating supply, increasing its scarcity and further driving its price up.

Many in the Bitcoin and overall crypto community lauded President Bukele's 2021 announcement that his country would begin accumulating Bitcoin and giving it legal tender status. To Bitcoiners, it was a sign that governments were starting to see Bitcoin as a legitimate store of value, a medium of exchange, and vindication of everything they had fought for over the years. Of course, many will want to say that the country's acquisition of Bitcoin was simply a power play to get the World Economic Forum to come to the bargaining table, but if so, what? Here we are four years later, and El Salvador is no longer requiring Bitcoin as legal tender. This is not a step back, it is simply another example of why we are winning. I'll discuss this further in another article, but isn't it convenient that President Bukele continues to accumulate Bitcoin for his country after making a concession to the WEF for funds? Tick, tock, next block.

Bitcoiners view introducing reserve bills across U.S. states as a powerful mechanism for further tightening Bitcoin's available supply. Each government-held coin is one fewer coin available to the market, creating a scarcity premium. Market forces do not artificially impose this scarcity but are instead the natural outcome of an institution with deep pockets choosing to hold Bitcoin as a strategic asset. In a world where every coin in reserve represents a bulwark against inflation and economic uncertainty, Bitcoiners argue that this state-induced scarcity will profoundly affect Bitcoin's value over time. If you don't believe that to be the case, look at this chart of coins available on OTC desks last year, and let me tell you that you are not bullish enough. I'll explore the impact of OTC sales on price in a future article.

For years, Bitcoiners have decried the inherent weaknesses of fiat currencies—specifically, the ease with which governments can expand the money supply, leading to inflation and eroded purchasing power. Bitcoin, on the other hand, offers a fixed supply, decentralized issuance, and an ever-shrinking inflation rate that makes it immune to the government's printing press.

When a government opts for Bitcoin reserves, it makes a financial decision and a political statement. It says that the era of limitless money printing is over and that transparency, decentralization, and scarcity are the hallmarks of a sound monetary system. Institutional legitimacy is crucial for any asset that aspires to be a cornerstone of the global financial system.

When the United States, the world's largest economy, signals its intent to hold Bitcoin in its reserves, it sends a resounding message that can trigger a domino effect worldwide. The recent [repeal of SAB121](https://cointelegraph.com/news sec-cancels-crypto-accounting-guidance-sab-121) by the Securities and Exchange Commission is a step in the right direction, by now allowing companies and course, governments at every level to accumulate Bitcoin into their reserves. When central banks like the Czech National Bank begin to signal openness toward digital assets, it paves the way for broader institutional participation. Once wary of the volatile digital asset market, financial institutions, asset managers, and even pension funds are gradually warming up to Bitcoin.

We cannot underestimate what sort of network effect this will have on Bitcoin as its utility and value proposition become more robust as a result of state-level adoption. Bitcoiners believe that such a shift will cement Bitcoin's status as a universally accepted and trusted store of value, capable of challenging—and eventually surpassing—traditional reserve assets like gold and fiat currencies.

One of the most enduring arguments among Bitcoiners is that Bitcoin is the digital successor to gold. For centuries, gold has been the haven, the ultimate store of value during times of crisis. Bitcoin, with its fixed supply and digital accessibility, is ideally positioned to take over that role in the modern era. A state-backed Bitcoin reserve would serve as this narrative's definitive stamp of approval. If a government is willing to set aside billions of dollars in a digital asset, it must believe that this asset can preserve and even appreciate its value over time. Such a move would provide a critical psychological boost to the market, as both retail and institutional investors begin to see Bitcoin as not just a speculative tool but as the modern equivalent of a haven set. Gold continues to appreciate this year while Bitcoin remains relatively flat. How long until we see it decouple from the markets and witness price appreciation not seen since the last halving?

I hope you enjoyed reading this lengthy article on the pros of governments adopting a strategic Bitcoin reserve. If you'd like to chime in, you can find me on Nostr via @geek on Primal, or via my npub anywhere else. In part two, I will examine the other side of the debate, the cons, and the potential pitfalls of such a policy. Stay tuned!