Got into a debate with the EF today on public goods funding.

I believe you should fund people, not projects.

More here as I pretend to be @samuellhuber.eth in a suit.

Farcaster Development Boutique @ https://dTech.vision 💜 in love with tech 🤓decentralization, fitness and oldschool rap 😎

Reducing the need for marketing in public goods funding 
@VoiceDeckDAO
 | ex WG lead 
@arbtreasury
 | 2023 ethereum foundation fellow 
@EFNextBillion
 |

Hacker founder using ai to coordinate onchain economies @tenfold, nounish channel client /comint

More: rubinovitz.com

you raise a good point, and this is tricky any way funding is apportioned.

but my intuition is that all targets should at least be funded something, even if it has to be limited into the dust. although the project funding would be captured by relationships vs "1000 anon" bandwidth sink, there's also nth-order effects of freelancers having more context to contribute in proximity to the repo in which they're underfunded.

otherwise, to @devanshmehta point #4, displacing the risk of funding politics downstream to dependencies can drive more competitive independence (rather than just expect more altruism). if it's going to be FOSS anyway, the upstream pledging project should demonstrate the "hero's merit" to the dependencies that remain & receive more concentrated funding, which is opportunity for other devs to compete & market to be more selective. which I'm hopeful would catch more pain before it's log4j.

𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆𝖙𝖚𝖒 𝖆𝖉 𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖆

you have a solid point, this seems like a liability for the downstream contributors, but at the same time, shouldn't the ecosystem move forward the more headaches are confronted? the pledging team's responsibility is to be revenue center, and the downstream dependencies should confront their responsibility as the cost center.

I’m pro funding all dependencies core contributors but not pro funding dependencies as projects because I think it’ll cause headaches for the core contributors