Thanks for the comments. Quick responses:
- Yes, it would probably be based on the fediverse.
- No, I wouldn't even worry about code hosting. People could host projects wherever/however they want.
- You are not paying to "avoid ads". You are contributing to the fund that gives out money to the developers you choose. In any case, ad viewing could be optional.
- Agree on the "talk to a lawyer", but first let's see how many people actually would be interested?
Sure, one could. But the point I am trying to make is that this service would be mostly a coordination mechanism for resource gathering and redistribution.
The participants would have to be aware that their money is meant to help OSS funding, not that they are getting "stuff" in return. The more "stuff" this service has to provide, the more it would cost to operate and the less would be made available to OSS developers.
@silverpill Hey, it's cool you checked this out. I've been following your work on Mitra and it's really impressive!
Re: payments and subscriptions, have you checked already the Unlock Protocol (https://unlock-protocol.com)?
Re: the idea from the post, I wouldn't make with crypto/web3. First, because there is already a project doing something similar for crypto, gitcoin. Second, this would *benefit* from having intermediaries and build social trust. There is some clash with the crypto ethos.
@silverpill how is unlock centralized? IIUIC, it is just a system to mint NFTs and web3 libraries that check ownership, no?
In short: there are plenty of systems where people *want* to rely on a third-party to deal with the complexity and to work be their proxy. I've written about it on https://twitter.com/rlullis/status/1307420668372430848
@silverpill I agree about the "governance theater", but I'd say you are being too cynical about the rest... The frontend is open source, it is not their fault if "no one will make a different frontend". The important thing is composability anyway, frontends matter little: same with Uniswap and most of the main DeFi projects, users worry about contracts having bugs and locking funds. At this stage of development, having upgradeable contracts seems less risky.
@silverpill you can fork without any issue. The CLA is standard procedure in companies that need to keep track of copyright.
As for their frontend, it is only used for those that want to mint the locks. Those that want to buy the NFT/get access to a site don't need to visit it.
I'm trying to think what you'd do differently that would make the system "more open"...
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!