I have a half-baked idea for an alternate funding model…. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
gitworkshop.dev and ngit have benefited greatly from the work you have done: analysis, testing, PM, etc. I am personally very grateful.
sourcing funding for this in nostr may be challenging. Many nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f grants are like mine: for 1 dev full-time. Most projects don't have access to a pot of money for this. It would be really nice to have a call-off pot for this and other things such as, the great work nostr:npub149p5act9a5qm9p47elp8w8h3wpwn2d7s2xecw2ygnrxqp4wgsklq9g722q has done on logo design. I wonder though if the Open Source dynamic changes, and an expectation is created, when smaller individual contributions are directly rewarded with money.
Discussion
The revenue split from the output of the bounty is a nice idea. Are you familiar with nostrocket.org from nostr:npub1mygerccwqpzyh9pvp6pv44rskv40zutkfs38t0hqhkvnwlhagp6s3psn5p?
Bounties don't even work for mechanical turk level stuff let alone complex requirements IMO, creates a malincentive
And quality requirements are nonfunctional requirements, so that's a level of abstraction higher.
Did you read it? Skim it?
It’s a sats-first, trust-based model.
Runs 100% on reputation and incentives
I did read it. I like the model. I was just agreeing with the point that good bounties are quite difficult to write. I bet clearly formulated ones would be very popular, tho.
I have a lot of experience in requirements engineering for companies, so I trust myself to write good requirements.
I mean, people could pay me to write up the bounty requirements with your parallel system. 😂
Ah, a parallel bounty.