Yes, it was for the manufacturer, not for the firmware author himself.
I agree that he shouldn't have put in the donation solicitation, but I think DEFCON's response to kick him out of his talk was an overreaction. Especially considering what prompted the easter egg was DEFCON removing the Entropic's badge credit from the badge case that they were promised. Even if DEFCON's statement about the manufacturing/cost issues with the badge (your point 1) was entirely true, the final badge that ended up in attendees' hands was still almost completely Entropic's and Dmitry's work, and they deserve credit for putting together something of that complexity in such a short time frame.
No one is coming out of this looking perfectly rosy, regardless of the truth behind things. The donation link was over the line, but DEFCON's change to the badge case was completely unethical, and disinviting Dmitry from the badge talk over an inappropriate easter egg was a dirty thing to do.
Yes, it was for the manufacturer, not for the firmware author himself.
I agree that he shouldn't have put in the donation solicitation, but I think DEFCON's response to kick him out of his talk was an overreaction. Especially considering what prompted the easter egg was DEFCON removing the Entropic's badge credit from the badge case that they were promised. Even if DEFCON's statement about the manufacturing/cost issues with the badge (your point 1) was entirely true, the final badge that ended up in attendees' hands was still almost completely Entropic's and Dmitry's work, and they deserve credit for putting together something of that complexity in such a short time frame.
No one is coming out of this looking perfectly rosy, regardless of the truth behind things. The donation link was over the line, but DEFCON's change to the badge case was completely unethical, and disinviting Dmitry from the badge talk over an inappropriate easter egg was a dirty thing to do.