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.

Working on Farcaster and Warpcast. Longer thoughts at https://dwr.email

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.

Multiplying onchain economies. Working on interfaces /comint and intelligence @tenfold
Past: AI and crypto rubinovitz.com

Outside of crypto, why do people build open source software?

I'm not a dev but I think at least some contribute for gaining recognition as devs. opening (better) job opportunities in the long run

It's helpful for them as well.  Serendipitous solutions for a specific problem, turns out they can be generalized.

Because they’re either dogmatists, altruists or both, generally want to contribute to something bigger than themselves and collaborate with other like-minded people.

My favorite projects are built by people who are paid to do so.