Session is shutting down in 90 days
Session, a privacy-focused messenger claiming 1.7 million users, is facing imminent shutdown unless it secures $1 million in donations within 90 days. This announcement has ignited a fervent discussion on Hacker News about the sustainability of donation-driven privacy tech, challenging its business model and technical integrity. Commenters are dissecting its security flaws, comparing it to competitors like Signal, and debating the reality of developer salaries in such projects.
The Lowdown
The Session Technology Foundation (STF) has announced that its privacy messenger, Session, will cease operations on July 8, 2026, if it cannot raise $1 million in funding within the next 90 days. Despite boasting 1.7 million monthly active users, strong app store ratings, and continuous growth, the project has only received $65,000 in donations.
Key points from the announcement include:
- The existing $65,000 in donations is only sufficient to maintain critical infrastructure for the initial 90-day period.
- All paid staff and developers are scheduled to have their final working day on April 9, 2026, with some team members continuing on a volunteer basis until the July 8 deadline.
- The STF estimates an annual operating cost of approximately $1 million, primarily for retaining highly skilled developers (who command $150,000+ salaries) and covering legal/operational overheads.
- Session claims to operate efficiently compared to competitors, achieving its mission with a budget equivalent to just two senior executives at larger messaging companies.
- Any donations not used in accordance with the STF's constitution will be publicly donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation if the funding goal is not met.
This final appeal underscores the significant financial challenges faced by privacy-focused, decentralized projects, even those with a substantial user base, in maintaining a viable and sustainable operational model.
The Gossip
Business Model Breakdown
Many commenters expressed dismay and surprise at Session's financial troubles, particularly given its reported 1.7 million users. A dominant theme was the critique of its lack of a viable business plan beyond donations, with users questioning the foundational strategy. Some likened it to 'Business 101' failures, while others suggested the modern tech 'business plan' often involves seeking VC money for an exit rather than sustainable revenue, raising concerns about user reliance on such services. The sentiment is that a successful project needs a clear path to funding its operations, not just good intentions.
Security Scrutiny & Signal Stand-Off
The discussion heavily scrutinized Session's security and privacy claims, with several users alleging past issues such as insecure encryption, the removal of forward secrecy, and its Australian origins raising concerns about government oversight. Many questioned why one would choose Session over Signal, prompting a debate about the core differences (anonymity vs. privacy, phone number requirements). Alternatives like SimpleX Chat and Delta Chat were frequently suggested as more secure or functional options, highlighting skepticism about Session's actual value proposition in the privacy space.
Developer Salary Dynamics
Session's mention of $150,000+ annual salaries for senior developers sparked a lively debate on compensation levels. Commenters challenged the idea that this is the norm across 'most markets,' especially outside prime US tech hubs, and discussed the true cost of employing developers in Europe (e.g., Germany, Switzerland, UK) factoring in overheads. Suggestions ranged from outsourcing to cheaper countries to questioning if the stated salaries were excessive for a non-profit in dire straits. Some even brought up Vitalik Buterin's prior donation, asking how it was utilized.
AI's 'Cost-Cutting' Comedy
A satirical, yet recurrent, theme emerged suggesting that Session could drastically cut costs by replacing its human developers with AI tools like Claude. These comments, often marked with '/s' for sarcasm, humorously propose using AI to write code, maintain infrastructure, or even act as a CTO. This reflects a cynical take on the current AI hype and its perceived ability to replace human labor, especially in critical and security-sensitive software development contexts.