[shard]

I'd love to see if some the following issues have been thought through:

- This sounds like spec work, where someone writes up a PR and submits hoping that they will be picked and/or paid the amount they request

- What happens if there is a disagreement about the payment amount? If the submitter withdraws their PR, are the maintainers then limited in their ability to code up their own fix since they've already seen the PR?

- If someone submits a PR and gets paid, then a bug is found in their code, do they have to pay from their share to fix the bug? What if the payment amount requested for the fix is higher than their share?

- It sounds like payment amount is determined through negotiation between the maintainer and submitter, or through discretion of the maintainer. Any clear metric on amount is likely to be gamed.

[jjranalli]

- If a PR solves an known issue, maintainers could specify the prospective reward in advance on the issue. The contributor should though always be able to set their own terms, discuss them with maintainers, and see them go through once the PR is merged.

- Maintainers could theoretically steal the code in a PR, but since everything is public they would lose reputations with contributors and the community. Future contributors will be wary of opening new PR in case maintainers act in bad faith.

- MTE doesn't impose any restriction or rules when it comes to how contributions should be managed, so it's up to project owners to come up with their own rules.

- I'd expect projects to specify objective rules to quantify rewards, for example based on effort required, task difficulty and impact on the project. I would also expect that estimates would naturally become more accurate as the project and number of maintainers grow