pull down to refresh
302 sats \ 6 replies \ @justin_shocknet 10h \ on: What 30k Free Users Taught Me About Charging $10/Month | Hacker News tech
The incentives around Bitcoin software really does need more discussion, we touched this a few weeks ago: #1088687
Until it's solved we'll keep getting scam wallets outnumbering good tools overwhelmingly
It's part of the Core/Knots problem too, for all the fighting it's Jack's money vs. Jack's money... Core particularly is pretty much all NGO funded, and Knots being supportive of covenants indicates its going the same way... fake L2's with a swap-fee business model are dictating almost all development priorities.
Tragedy of the commons.
Great point! I often feel like Jack is the main billionaire moving the needle from a capital standpoint.
Blockstream and Tether have capital but it appears they only serve their own interests
reply
Alex Marcos/Chaincode are another such example, at least as far as Core is concerned. Everyone serves their own interest, to the extent they align with broader interest is incidental.
It's the entities we don't know about, operating from behind cover, that are even more of a vulnerability. Blockstream has raised what hundreds of millions, billions? Where did that come from and who pulls the board strings? At what point does Tether's shareholders interest start to deviate from the Bitcoin commoner? Also easy to make the case that Blockstream is a Tether subsidiary, many Bitcoin companies are, in effect.
People gave Saylor shit for being against funding development, but I don't think they heard what he was actually saying. The only way to discourage activist development is to discourage active development.
That's what's so magical about proof-of-work consensus, the only resistance Bitcoin has against human organization is human disorganization... but that doesn't obviate vigilance as enough resources and time can still change the walking meat that ultimately gives Bitcoin value.
reply
I want to question whether building a generosity/patronage model of software development is good for Bitcoin.
There are a lot of good projects out there, maintained to very high standards. There should be a way that the people who do that work can make revenue.
reply
My face when NGOs are the patrons
reply
I wonder if the "people don't like to pay for software" phenomenon is the same as tragedy of the commons.
I remember being all too willing to pay for software when I was a kid (the day I bought Warcraft 2 was one of the best days of my childhood, closely followed by Command and Conquer Red Alert, Civ III, and Unreal Tournament).
Since adulthood, I really haven't paid for any software. Everything I use is free. People just magically do the work of maintaining it for me -- which seems completely unsustainable.
I can see how some of the big projects like ubuntu are able to make a business out of support, or maybe a SAAS model, but smaller software projects seem to mostly be hoping for an acquisition (this is my ignorant outsider's view).
I wonder if it is a little like writing. There is so much writing out there, it is not necessary for people to pay for it much anymore. The solution for writers seems to be a patronage model or getting hired by a company to garner attention for them or to build some following which they can monetize.
The big difference that I see between writing and open source software is that software needs to be maintained. Writing is more like fire and forget. I suppose writers need to maintain their audiences...
Whatever the case, I would love to see more conversation about how Bitcoin ecosystem projects can make more money and be sustainable.
reply
Unreal Tournament
If I had a sat for each second spent in Facing Worlds...
My whole thesis on it is that only business software and entertainment software is monetizable... Business because you can embed yourself into leverage building processes such that things become indispensable... Ubuntu is monetized through services to business whom have invested in other processes built on top of it, they aren't paying Canonical in their mind, they're maintaining their own infrastructure.
Games vary in monetized dynamics, but even that had to evolve with online-ness since cracked torrents and CD burners became a big problem.
Bitcoin software doesn't really have either of those levers because the whole point of using Bitcoin is that you don't need the license key or credentials for the game / SaaS / Professional Services.
We see so many companies doing custody and swaps because that covers literally every (the majority) user that are indifferent to those non-monetizable properties.
This might best explain a lot of my views on Bitcoin software generally,
- That Core should be treated like Enterprise or SCADA software... non-breaking above all and infrequently updated because the surface is minimal.
- That the Lightning shell is the highest leverage point from which to push on overall adoption, Circular-MoE, and self-custodial use. That's all in one place because it's where people can actually treat Bitcoin (and Bitcoin software) as part of their revenues.
Note how that Lightning.Video, ShockWallet with its Nostr Offers and Lightning.Pub Dashboard, all using Sanctum to manage identity in organizational settings, are a stack of tools a business could use to build and scale their revenue.
reply