Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I see for instance how DAOs and blockchain could help developers receive compensation for commits to open source software, creating a possibility for the commercialisation of open source that competes with even large companies. I know people who looked into this. And I hope it happens. I was appropriately reprimanded by dang yesterday for starting a comment with an attack, so I'll slow down and just point out the f…
I’ve gotten some flak from dang as well ;) happens sometimes I think we are describing fundamentally different economies. GitHub Sponsors is optional. I’m talking about a way to have mandatory payments in open-source, with fully transparent automatic payment mechanisms to all contributors. And before you say well how, MakerDAO is kind of already working like this (I’d have to look into it more but that’s my impressio…
1. "It’s open source but when you buy it you get an NFT that lets you run the software." You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what open source software is. If you need to buy some sort of NFT to run your software, it's not open source, and this goes against pretty much every definition of open source I've ever seen. You're free to sell your own software now, just don't call it open source if it can't be modified and run independently.
2. "But using the blockchain as a method of developer verification, open source becomes profitable in a way that’s verifiable, decentralised and permission less." This is another pet peeve of mine, when crypto enthusiasts rediscover cryptographic principles that have already been in use for decades and decide by calling it "blockchain" that it is something novel. We have a very nice, cryptographically secure method to verify the commit history of any open source software. It's called git and it's been in use for about 2 decades now.
Again, all I really see is a rube-goldberg machine trying to solve a problem that is fundamentally not about difficulty of existing payment systems.