it seems like your concept of v4v is the end user names their price. And this write up is a completely valid critique of the name your price foss model. v4v is rather an entirely different approach from the getgo… you don’t design for an end user in the v4v model, you have to treat the end user like they are an associate, they are the producer, they are the vc.
Discussion
How does that work in practice? What are they designing or funding if you haven’t created anything?
long-term investment from both parties. Your investors/producers might lack the technical sophistication, viewing them clueless users doesn't put them in a position of responsibility to stay involved.
In a v4v model, contributions of time and talent lead to deeper and more meaningful relationships between participants in this exchange, these connections extend beyond one-off transactions and can result in more sustainable and loyal investors.
Name your price, doesn’t offer the same mutual growth and reciprocity that a v4v proposition has.
The design has to be reciprocal, design the concept of “user” out of the network and proposition. Yes someone needs to start and lead the community from an initial contribution of creation, but that creation needs to include the space and necessity and long term commitment to open the door to diverse contributions.
The UI framework example… is a contribution of value towards a larger picture. if you’re not finding value in, or not taking an active role in, v4v won’t work. It’s in the definition, "framework -
a system of rules, ideas, or beliefs that is used to plan or decide something” if you’re not gaining value from the something than v4v doesn’t apply in this instance. I think advocates of v4v would agree that because you’re not taking a long term stake in the something, that a name your price model isn’t the right way to go for this unilateral exchange.