As soon as VC money comes in, the founders cash out and the enshittification begins as the VC will be expecting returns on their money.

That's the difference between libre software and merely open source software.

Libre licenses make it hard or impractical to close the source at a later date.

Open source licenses are much more permissive and allow any entity to produce a closed source derivation at any time.

Libre licenses are all about strategically protecting the software commons from privatization.

This is why despite me self hosting some things I don't rely on vaultwarden. I'm a flawed person and my family has no idea about anything. I don't need to stretch my imagination very far to think of a handful of reasons why it would fail my situation. I'll gladly pay for a password manager to not have to deal with that.

Can you explain the issues with KeePass? Or is there another thread?

Nothing has beaten KeePass for me so far. It takes a bit of setting up if you want your database to sync among all your devices, but in other aspects it's perfect for me

EDIT: In case you're curious, I use KeePassXC on PC, KeePassDX on Android, and Syncthing to sync the database.

Proton Pass is a valid option.

The author wrote a guide to self-hosting VaultWarden

https://blog.ppb1701.com/self-hosting-vaultwarden-taking-back-password-management-part-8-of-building-a-resilient-home-serve

I've been using it for years. But I have been waiting for this day to come. Because it always comes at some point without fail.

You still have some time to decide which route to go. If you're on the free version, stay there, but start looking for alternatives.

Proton Pass is an option. KeePass with Syncthing works great, but it is a dramatically different and more involved workflow.

I am using both, and deleted my Bitwarden account yesterday the moment I heard about this.

Also, I can't suggest enough that you export all your credentials to an encrypted json file every now and then, and store it on an offline storage device. This is important.

He completely misunderstands the product. Transparency is paramount. Not trust.

How is psono? I've been looking to do secrets correctly in my lab for a while and its name has popped up a few times.

Nothing is stopping Proton from doing the same thing next week. And seeing how many people lock themselves in to Proton (by using all their services, Apple style), they have a strong incentive to also do some "restructuring" and spike prices.

Cloud version is for businesses not people, for some reason. But selfhosted is free of course.

The Article says:

A Note for Vaultwarden Users

Whether self-hosting stays viable long-term is the real question worth sitting with.

Right now it works because Bitwarden’s clients are open source and the server API is public. Vaultwarden implements that API, and the official apps can’t tell the difference. That depends on Bitwarden continuing to publish open source clients and not restricting which servers they’ll talk to — neither of which is guaranteed under new management.

The brake on the worst case: self-hosting is a listed Enterprise feature that generates real revenue. Killing it upsets paying business customers. That matters.

The catch: what Bitwarden sells to enterprises is their own official server stack, not Vaultwarden. Vaultwarden exists in a space they’ve tolerated but never endorsed. If the calculus shifts, the tolerance ends without any announcement. Just let the API drift until compatibility breaks on its own.

I don’t think that’s imminent. But I also thought the free tier commitment was ironclad, and “Always free” isn’t on the page anymore.The real safety net is that Bitwarden’s clients are Apache 2.0 licensed. A fork would need a rebrand to stay clear of the trademark — different name, tweaked UI, same engine — but that’s a speed bump, not a wall. The web vault works through any browser regardless of what happens to the apps, so worst case you’d lose autofill temporarily while a fork caught up. Inconvenient, not catastrophic. Vaultwarden itself is already proof the model works.

Watch the clients. If they go closed, the community will notice fast, and the fork will follow.

It shouldn't in theory. Worst case is if bitwarden closes source, just fork the latest current open version and use it.

Ideally, a group, either independent or joining with vaultwarden devs, can build/maintain the frontend for vaultwarden that is bitwarden.

Need a remind me bot rn