>The money didn't go towards the author.

Perhaps many would have refused to donate if they knew that the project would be archived in a year. Collecting for audit and then archiving the project is, in a way, a violation of expectations.

▲

IncreasePosts 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Did they perform the audit? That is what is important.

The more and more you start modifying code after the audit, the more and more useless the audit becomes.

	▲	ranger_danger 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> That is what is important Depends on your perspective... If I'd known the project was going to stop soon after I donated, I probably wouldn't donate, even if the purpose of the money was strictly for an audit.
	▲	hakavlad 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes, they performed.

▲

insane_dreamer 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did the author do the audit? Is the audit available? If so, then they did what people donated for. End of story.

▲

pavel_lishin 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Would they have refused to donate if they knew the author would be hit by a bus in a year? Or hired by someone who refused to allow them to continue working on it?

I don't think the author had explicit plans to do this a year ago.

▲

GoblinSlayer 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What are expectations? Audit is invalidated by the first change after it, so archivation is basically necessary. VeraCrypt was audited too, lol.