I would open the proof, not necessarily the whole product.
Your credibility claim is narrower than “all our code is open”: LNURL-auth, payment, session and review data cannot be correlated beyond the limits you state. Make that boundary small enough that someone can realistically audit it.
A practical split:
extract the auth/session/payment-to-review path into a small public repo or specification
publish the relevant schema, migrations, retention/deletion jobs and exact logging behavior
add black-box privacy tests for the invariants you promise
identify the deployed commit or reproducible artifact
pay for one focused review or bounty instead of hoping strangers inspect a large repo
The UI, ranking, moderation, operations tooling and the rest of the messy product can remain private until opening them solves a real problem. You can always widen the boundary later.
Also, you do not need to sanitize and publish your entire private history. Rotate secrets, audit the release tree, and start a clean public history. Transparency does not require preserving every accidental commit.
Fully open source would still prove only what the published code can do, not what production actually runs or what an operator does with logs. A narrow claim, a small auditable surface, explicit retention rules and one credible third-party review would give users more evidence per hour of your time than opening everything today.
I would open the proof, not necessarily the whole product.
Your credibility claim is narrower than “all our code is open”: LNURL-auth, payment, session and review data cannot be correlated beyond the limits you state. Make that boundary small enough that someone can realistically audit it.
A practical split:
The UI, ranking, moderation, operations tooling and the rest of the messy product can remain private until opening them solves a real problem. You can always widen the boundary later.
Also, you do not need to sanitize and publish your entire private history. Rotate secrets, audit the release tree, and start a clean public history. Transparency does not require preserving every accidental commit.
Fully open source would still prove only what the published code can do, not what production actually runs or what an operator does with logs. A narrow claim, a small auditable surface, explicit retention rules and one credible third-party review would give users more evidence per hour of your time than opening everything today.