Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Strong opinion, loosely held For an open source protocol that aims to be credibly neutral, paid bounties work for small tasks but something like an open source client is better if organically built (as a labor of love) and then receives a retroactive public goods type funding.
13 replies
2 recasts
51 reactions
BKim pfp
BKim
@brittkim.eth
I’m with you. I think labors of love beat all other incentives in general.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
​woj pfp
​woj
@woj.eth
imo ideal model these days is: 1. protocol provides liquidity (users or tokens) to builders 2. instead of dropping bounties, the org behind the protocol invests in dev and marketing support 3. protocol and builders only win if both are profitable, otherwise it's only gonna work in frothy markets
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
JB Rubinovitz ⌐◨-◨ pfp
JB Rubinovitz ⌐◨-◨
@rubinovitz
I think there’s an unaccounted for cost of great devs not bothering to build on platforms, at DAOs, etc because there is no obvious way for them to get financial and/or social recognition. I don’t think retro funding is enough.
1 reply
1 recast
0 reaction
​woj pfp
​woj
@woj.eth
organic + not incentivised + profitable is the ideal end state non-crypto open source is beautiful bc of 1 and 2 but lack of 3 is big problem crypto foundations and token incentives messed up this system and attract mostly mercenaries op rpgf / nouns have a shot at solving for 1 and 3
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
EmpiricalLagrange - tevm/acc pfp
EmpiricalLagrange - tevm/acc
@eulerlagrange.eth
The ideal is certainly if someone builds it by themselves because they anticipate a valid business model. The problem is validating an idea and building a open source app where people can contribute are different things. A foundational client also requires a good design system so people can easily augment it.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Jack Miller pfp
Jack Miller
@jackm
IMO that is the best way to do public goods funding in general: * Private sector free to take risk and compete mercilessly to find product market fit * Public sector then makes neutral infra -> better market for all * If instead public sector leads, infra in monopolized -> no further development (or no fit at all)
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
EmpiricalLagrange - tevm/acc pfp
EmpiricalLagrange - tevm/acc
@eulerlagrange.eth
Also doesn’t have to a bounty for a full app. You can split it up to useful bits: 1. react hooks library would be amazing for web and RN, 2. Hooks to add/remove delegate signers, sign messages, and verify messages. … lots of other possibilities 1 & 2 would set the client ecosystem up for fluid upgrades.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
yehoshzl pfp
yehoshzl
@yehoshzl
Agree. But - this only works if you can fund the labor of love first before the retroactive funding shows up.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Kairon pfp
Kairon
@k41r0n
Wouldn't this kind of incentive be sorta like airdrop farmers on defi protocols? Tons of surface level contributions, very few actually meaningful conversations or targeted work
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
krel pfp
krel
@krel
This model has gotten increasingly popular for nouns too Ie build an mvp, get traction, and then ask for retro comp vs ”fund us and we’ll build”
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shazow pfp
shazow
@shazow.eth
100% agree that labor of love results in the most interesting and caring outcomes, but we need more people who can afford to work on their labors of love. Small bounties are an okay way to get started, grants are an okay to keep going, RetroPGF is okay to go further. Haven't seen much better ideas yet.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Sahil 🥝 pfp
Sahil 🥝
@sahilk
Not sure how strongly I agree with the retroactive public goods type funding bit. That path limits where the open source client can come from. Sometimes the labor of love needs support earlier in the journey. Kinda like @purple, no? Very much agree that it can’t be born out of a bounty though.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Berno pfp
Berno
@baboon
gem
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction