Tangled is built on top of the AT Protocol, and "mediates" between what they call "knots". Git servers. Their strength is to use AT Protocol to make communication across multiple Git servers work smoothly.

Radicle is completely peer to peer. There are no such things as servers and clients, only nodes. However, there are quite a few nodes that then act as HTTP servers to offer convenient access via the browser.

▲

phoronixrly 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Also, Tangled is VC-funded. I cannot find information about Radicle, but considering the authorship is not advertised on their website, and that P2P is not easily monetizable, I would bet it is not VC-funded.

All in all, seems like an awesome project and instantly more trustworthy and rugpull-resistant than Tangled.

▲

0x3o3 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

yeah the Radicle protocol is fully owned and governed by a Swiss non-profit.

	▲	phoronixrly 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		As per https://radicle.xyz/history > The Radicle Foundation is established. A Swiss non-profit that oversees the development of the project. Thank you!

▲

creativeair2049 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> instantly more trustworthy

quite ironic, radicle seems to have raised 7m$ from "radworks", some sort of crypto foundation.

that being said, why is it being not monetizable a good thing? their website says radicle has been in development for 4 years already. without more money in the bank, how would they continue to build the thing?

	▲	lorenzleutgeb 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Radicle is a free software project, not a company or commercial product. Many other open source projects are also not monetizable in the narrow sense, and still manage to attract enough contributors and funding to flourish. Sometimes these projects even get adopted so widespread that multiple companies build consortia/foundations to fund the development, even if there is no direct revenue stream from that. As long as someone is willing to fund the development of Radicle, the developers just will have a stronger incentive to work on it. Without any more funding, of course it will join the (very large) club of less well funded free software projects. If enough people join and contribute now, and then some companies make the switch, it might well be feasible to pay a small team to continue working on it, financed by donations. Just don't think about it as a commercial product, only because someone decided to use their money towards its development. If you don't like that it's not a company, then that's okay. I am just trying to give another perspective.