Live data from Hacker News

Polar v1.0: Let’s Fix Open Source Funding

blog.polar.sh

71–80 of 139 posts

Re: Polar v1.0: Let’s Fix Open Source Funding

#71
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the time I might spend working on consulting inquiries is not time spent on the daily job, on the oss project itself (especially if the request is about something not aligned with the roadmap of the project), or on relaxing during free time. As an oss maintainer, the way I see it is that unless the purpose itself behind the oss code is to make money via consulting, offering consulting is usually not in the intere…

Wait, if you are getting paid for adding features or fixing stuff on the OSS code, that's time spent on the project. And chances are that if somebody is willing to pay something, many other people will find use for it.

Sounds good in isolation, but as others have mentioned, in some (most?) places, accepting money like that would be considered a professional activity, and you suddenly must worry about a host of other distracting things that take time, effort, and preoccupations: incorporating, tax filings, invoicing.

Or you could pay someone to manage it for you, but you're still suddenly involving yourself in stuff that you hadn't even had the interest or intention to do anyways.

In my European country, for example, having a regular source of revenue [1] requires registering with the government as an independent contractor, which costs a bit less than 400€/month. Then you will need to extend invoices, with the consequence of having to worry about VAT (consulting is a service? I guess so it incurs in VAT), make VAT tax filings each trimester, store invoices for several years in case they are requested.

One day you look back and think "but, but, I just wanted to spend a couple hours per week on small consulting requests!". As a consequence, people are greatly discouraged if it's not going to be a serious path to make serious money.

[1]: Yes, revenue, i.e. regardless of profit, and in theory also regardless of amount, albeit in practice they won't enforce it for measly revenues if they are roughly below 1000€/month.

Re: Polar v1.0: Let’s Fix Open Source Funding

#72
post #70
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Luckily you do not need credentials to solve problems with software. No, but you should at least provide a perspective why you will succeed (where many others have tried and failed). The only thing I see different in their approach is trying to "empower maintainers to become entrepreneurs", in a market in which there is no actual demand (= willingness for companies to pay cash). And they try to do that with a offer…

> no actual demand (= willingness for companies to pay cash) My company would be a lot more willing to pay a one-time bounty to fix a bug that is impacting us or build a feature that would help us then to pay a continual donation or sponsorship for uncertain benefit.

> My company would be a lot more willing to pay a one-time bounty to fix a bug

And how often do you do that today, in practice? If the pain is big enough, then I'm sure you tried to reach out to maintainers directly and see if there is a way for them to do paid work.

Re: Polar v1.0: Let’s Fix Open Source Funding

#73
post #30

I'm sorry, but I would never give money to an open-source project through a VC-backed company that takes a 10% commission. I could maybe live with it if it was 0.5%, but heck I'll just find the maintainer and wire them the money somehow. Github Sponsorship takes 0% from private accounts. I could very much be wrong about this, but the whole thing feels like it's coming from the perspective of someone thinking "I've he…

You can make more money on a platform that has a higher fee if that platform has a better brand, has less friction, has more users, is easier to setup, etc.

Yeah but 10% is still very greedy, assuming they become the dominant platform for this. And if they don't become the big platform for this then they aren't adding the value which justifies 10% anyways.

Re: Polar v1.0: Let’s Fix Open Source Funding

#74
post #65
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polar can cover the sales tax like Lemonsqueezy by being a merchant of record.

That's one way to do it, but it's extremely challenging. The sales tax can depend on where the buyer is located , where the buyer is from , where the seller is located, and where the seller is from. There are ~1000 jurisdictions for each of those four choices, so that makes for ~1000^4 different cases to handle. You'd also have to register as a merchant in each juridiction, and know the rules for when you have to sta…

> Maybe just offload that burden to one of them and focus on building your core innovation.

I don't think that's incompatible with their model. They absolutely could use Stripe to accomplish this transparently and not sacrifice any user experience.

Re: Polar v1.0: Let’s Fix Open Source Funding

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make more money on a platform that has a higher fee if that platform has a better brand, has less friction, has more users, is easier to setup, etc.

Yeah but 10% is still very greedy, assuming they become the dominant platform for this. And if they don't become the big platform for this then they aren't adding the value which justifies 10% anyways.

It's a smaller fee than Patreon.

Re: Polar v1.0: Let’s Fix Open Source Funding

#79
post #78

Nice idea and good luck :) >Join our Discord to discuss ideas, early design proposals and upcoming features Yeah, no...disheartening to see this many FOSS developers opting for Discord for realtime chat.

Why disheartening? What would you prefer?

It's a walled garden that was hostile to third-party clients from the start. It asks for phone number to sign up. The client is slow (both web version and electron version). Ghost notifications and spams in DM. No way to find channels to join.

Matrix, IRC...at least set up a bridge to one if you are going Discord

Re: Polar v1.0: Let’s Fix Open Source Funding

#80
post #30

I'm sorry, but I would never give money to an open-source project through a VC-backed company that takes a 10% commission. I could maybe live with it if it was 0.5%, but heck I'll just find the maintainer and wire them the money somehow. Github Sponsorship takes 0% from private accounts. I could very much be wrong about this, but the whole thing feels like it's coming from the perspective of someone thinking "I've he…

It’s not about giving money, it’s about buying features, services and support from the maintainers.
Post reply on HN