I’ve had three glasses of wine after a long day at work, and I’ve began thinking about the slow shift towards federalization/decentralization.

I find myself concerned about the question of incentives. What motivates the owners and maintainers of federated services to continue their efforts over the years? Donations alone are unlikely to cover the costs of servers, let alone the time required for code/infra maintenance, along with community moderation.

It is evident that most successful open source projects have found alternative avenues to sustain Incentivisation. One common approach is offering enterprise packages or services, which generate revenue to support ongoing development and maintenance. Additionally, some projects find support as subsets of larger corporations, such as Canonical, HashiCorp, Apache, MongoDB, k8s, Chromium, Android, Red Hat, and many more.

I am sure that many of us have witnessed many donation-based or entirely free and open-source (FOSS) projects lose traction over time. In my observations, this can be attributed to core maintainers losing interest or facing limitations in dedicating themselves to the project in the long run. The absence of financial incentives can make it challenging to sustain motivation, as maintaining and developing projects require significant time and expertise, and a genuine interest in the product.

What can be done to address these problems? Is it something like decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs)?

DAOs provide token-based incentives, allowing contributors to earn tokens representing ownership or value in the project. These tokens can be exchanged or redeemed for various benefits within the decentralized ecosystem. By aligning the interests of contributors with the success of the project, DAOs offer a sustainable incentive structure, while maintaining their decentralized nature.

Although incentives pose a valid concern for a decentralized future, it is important to acknowledge that sustainable models exist. Through the exploration of alternative mechanisms such as DAOs and hybrid models, we can create incentive structures that attract and retain contributors over the long term. I strongly believe that for decentralized projects to thrive and maintain momentum, it is crucial for them to embrace alternative models that effectively retain talented individuals. As these projects continue to innovate and adapt, exploring diverse incentive structures becomes essential to ensure their long-term success.

Thoughts?

  • Riley@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Get that crypto shit out of here lmao. The answer is just building strong communities that give a shit about building good internet spaces. It’s political, and that’s not a bad thing. It’s not hard, and it doesn’t need to be profitable to work.

  • rysiek@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Absolutely not. Cryptobros showed that the whole cryptocurrency scene is either in on the scams or at least not bothered by them. Just consider Web3 Is Doing Great: for every promise “web3”/DAO people make, there is at least one story there how “web3”/DAO does not deliver and cannot deliver.

    Here are some additional resources about why any suggestions of cryptocurrency/NFT/web3/DAO-related actions need to be pushed back on with full force:

    Cryptobros had all the time to build sustainable, equitable, decentralized communities, and failed to do so. Instead, they scammed a lot of people out of their money, and a lot of artists out of their work.

    Letting them in on the federated social networking action is letting in foxes into the hen house.

    Donations, Liberapay, etc are the right way to support these federated social spaces. DAOs and other cryptocurrency scams are absolutely, positively not the right way to support them. Relying on them will let cryptobros benefit financially from it, while destroying the movement.

  • knokelmaat@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Signal is doing just fine with donations only.

    Debian is one of the biggest free software communities and it isn’t going anywhere.

    Most projects have a limited lifespan, this is not just limited to open source projects. The good thing is that when there is a need, people get together and start building. For example music players on Linux have come and gone, but I will always be able to listen to my stuff comfortably.

    Money is needed to survive, but these projects exist because we want more than that, to live satisfied and happy lives. This is something that goes beyond money or survival, but is still a very strong and genuine incentive.

    Thank you for opening up this discussion!

    • patchymoose@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Wikipedia is another example. One of the most heavily visited websites, operated as a nonprofit. Obviously they don’t only rely on donations from visitors, as they have a whole foundation. But they are a great example IMO.

  • codesmith@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    At best DAOs are simply an extension of shareholder capitalism with less regulation.

  • ehleksA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cost of servers and maintenance is really not that much, last I saw lemmy.world pays around 350€ per month.