If you run a very popular tool, that uses a library that competes with another, suddenly, the decision to change libraries, could have very real economic consequences to the maintainers of the lib.
Its becoming more and more apparent that projects like this are needed. Funding open source software adds both an incentive and skin in the game for developers/contributors. We would get more open source projects that are kept alive and up to date. I also think that potentially harmful activist modifications are less likely if the software in question provides a stream of revenue to the developer.
User pays the node operator to ferry the user’s messages. The node operator donates X% of fee back to the protocol developer team.
To me, it just makes sense to leave it to the discretion of the node operators how much they want to kick back to support protocol maintenance and development.
Users will naturally flock to more altruistic nodes.
This is a double sided market. If some dev influencers are convinced to start using it perhaps that could get the ball rolling. It's a really cool way to fund software.
this seems incredibly cool - I hope, nay pray, for adoption.
deleted by author
This could get wild.
If you run a very popular tool, that uses a library that competes with another, suddenly, the decision to change libraries, could have very real economic consequences to the maintainers of the lib.
deleted by author
Its becoming more and more apparent that projects like this are needed. Funding open source software adds both an incentive and skin in the game for developers/contributors. We would get more open source projects that are kept alive and up to date. I also think that potentially harmful activist modifications are less likely if the software in question provides a stream of revenue to the developer.
deleted by author
deleted by author
deleted by author
Think of the application to the Nostr network:
User pays the node operator to ferry the user’s messages. The node operator donates X% of fee back to the protocol developer team.
To me, it just makes sense to leave it to the discretion of the node operators how much they want to kick back to support protocol maintenance and development.
Users will naturally flock to more altruistic nodes.
deleted by author
this is cool
deleted by author
This is a double sided market. If some dev influencers are convinced to start using it perhaps that could get the ball rolling. It's a really cool way to fund software.
deleted by author
deleted by author