this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2023
40 points (100.0% liked)

Chat

7498 readers
5 users here now

Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
40
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by ultraHQ to c/chat
 

I've had three glasses of wine after a long day at work, and I've began thinking about the slow shift towards federalization/decentralization.

I find myself concerned about the question of incentives. What motivates the owners and maintainers of federated services to continue their efforts over the years? Donations alone are unlikely to cover the costs of servers, let alone the time required for code/infra maintenance, along with community moderation.

It is evident that most successful open source projects have found alternative avenues to sustain Incentivisation. One common approach is offering enterprise packages or services, which generate revenue to support ongoing development and maintenance. Additionally, some projects find support as subsets of larger corporations, such as Canonical, HashiCorp, Apache, MongoDB, k8s, Chromium, Android, Red Hat, and many more.

I am sure that many of us have witnessed many donation-based or entirely free and open-source (FOSS) projects lose traction over time. In my observations, this can be attributed to core maintainers losing interest or facing limitations in dedicating themselves to the project in the long run. The absence of financial incentives can make it challenging to sustain motivation, as maintaining and developing projects require significant time and expertise, and a genuine interest in the product.

What can be done to address these problems? Is it something like decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs)?

DAOs provide token-based incentives, allowing contributors to earn tokens representing ownership or value in the project. These tokens can be exchanged or redeemed for various benefits within the decentralized ecosystem. By aligning the interests of contributors with the success of the project, DAOs offer a sustainable incentive structure, while maintaining their decentralized nature.

Although incentives pose a valid concern for a decentralized future, it is important to acknowledge that sustainable models exist. Through the exploration of alternative mechanisms such as DAOs and hybrid models, we can create incentive structures that attract and retain contributors over the long term. I strongly believe that for decentralized projects to thrive and maintain momentum, it is crucial for them to embrace alternative models that effectively retain talented individuals. As these projects continue to innovate and adapt, exploring diverse incentive structures becomes essential to ensure their long-term success.

Thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RedMarsRepublic@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Any kind of governance that fundamentally relies on how much wealth the participants have (like DAOs) is completely unworkable.

[–] rysiek@szmer.info 17 points 1 year ago

And completely unacceptable.

[–] SubArcticTundra 8 points 1 year ago

True, you'd just be extending the problem of wealth inequality into the digital realm