[hakavlad]

>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]

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]

> 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]

Yes, they performed.

[insane_dreamer]

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

[pavel_lishin]

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]

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