How does GrapheneOS fund full‑time developers and which companies have publicly collaborated with the project?

1. How GrapheneOS says it pays full‑time developers

GrapheneOS’s public donation page lists the concrete uses of donations—paying developers, buying workstations and test hardware, covering infrastructure such as domains and servers, and legal fees—and points to recurring and one‑time sponsorship via GitHub Sponsors as a primary donation channel, with PayPal and Wise/bank transfers as alternatives ^[1]. The project’s history page and discussion forum reiterate that multiple full‑time and part‑time developers are supported by donations, framing community contributions as the financial backbone of development work rather than venture capital or product sales ^{[2] [5]}.

2. Platforms and payment routes used for funding

GrapheneOS explicitly invites sponsorship through GitHub Sponsors for recurring credit‑card donations, while also accepting one‑time PayPal donations (including PayPal.Me and direct PayPal email), and bank transfers to the GrapheneOS Foundation’s Wise accounts in several regions—details that show a mix of consumer‑facing and institutional payment routes to sustain payroll and operating costs ^[1]. Public-facing infrastructure choices—such as hosted servers and domain needs—are listed as donation expenditures, underscoring that donations aren’t only developer payroll but include the ecosystem needed to run the project ^[1].

3. Company collaborations, sponsors and hosting partners named publicly

GrapheneOS’s own history page states “multiple companies collaborating with the project,” and independent reporting and project messages flesh out some of those relationships: the project has publicly referenced sponsorships and hosting arrangements with providers such as ReliableSite (Los Angeles, Miami), Tempest (London), OBH in Canada, and plans to move content to Netcup and colocated servers in Toronto, reflecting commercial hosting collaborations rather than equity investments ^{[2] [3]}. Privacy‑oriented resellers and integrators like Privacy First have also been publicly associated with offering devices preloaded with GrapheneOS, which the project and third‑party writeups cite as a practical collaboration for distribution ^[4].

4. The earlier corporate sponsor and the shift to donations

Historically, GrapheneOS evolved from a project that had a corporate sponsor—previously operating under the CopperheadOS name—intended to commercialize support and custom variants; that sponsor relationship ended amid a dispute over licensing and control, and the project emphasizes its current independence and donor‑funded model ^{[2] [6]}. The project’s public history accuses the former sponsor of misinformation and harassment, a claim noted on its site and relevant to understanding why GrapheneOS highlights donation transparency and independent governance ^[2].

5. Caveats, gaps and competing narratives

Public materials clearly show donations and service‑level collaborations (hosting and distribution partners) as the main funding and commercial touchpoints, but there is limited public line‑item accounting in the provided sources showing exactly how many developers are full‑time vs part‑time or the precise revenue breakdown by channel; GrapheneOS’s statements assert donations fund developers, and third‑party reporting documents hosting sponsors and distributors, but granular financial disclosures are not present in these sources ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The project frames its independence and funding model as protective against corporate capture—an implicit agenda shaped by its history with a former sponsor—so readers should weigh the project’s self‑descriptions alongside third‑party reporting ^[2].