Keep in mind that this scheme wouldn't reward the authors of software -- it rewards the people who create and upload packages. Those usually aren't the same people, and the maintainers that are most subject to burnout are the authors, not the packagers.
It also appears to require those developers to purchase (or otherwise acquire) tokens before adding software to the packaging system.
> Keep in mind that this scheme wouldn't reward the authors of software -- it rewards the people who create and upload packages. Those usually aren't the same people, and the maintainers that are most subject to burnout are the authors, not the packagers.
It creates an incentive to package software for the ecosystem, which is a pretty good goal to achieve for a package manager -- especially a brand new one where it would be hard to gain traction without a large number of packages.
I see that as mainly a social problem, not a technical one.
I've noticed that a lot of crypto enthusiasts tend to reach for technical solutions without understanding the social causes of the problem in the first place
Those people are already getting paid in GitHub stars. Adding United Fruit Company dollars to the mix doesn’t make the compensation any more real.
What money will be entering this ecosystem? Absent funds flowing in, how will package maintainers be able to convert their tea bucks to something they can pay rent with?
Yeah those GitHub stars really help with burnout. When you're wading through a hundred pointless PRs of people trying to pad their contribution stats, those GitHub stars just release all the tension.
Keep in mind that this scheme wouldn't reward the authors of software -- it rewards the people who create and upload packages. Those usually aren't the same people, and the maintainers that are most subject to burnout are the authors, not the packagers.
It also appears to require those developers to purchase (or otherwise acquire) tokens before adding software to the packaging system.