On 09/06/2017 07:10 AM, David Seaward wrote:
> Hi all,
> Saw this still-very-early-days proposal at
> https://www.joaquimrocha.com/2017/09/05/paying-for-foss-apps/
> "TrinkGeld is a proposal for a GNOME project (but should be usable in
> most free desktops out there) that uses monthly donations and
> distributes them to app developers based on how much their apps are
> used, together with a Humble Bundle style customization options."
> The proposed distribution is more traditional than Snowdrift.coop, but
> the enthusiasm for supporting authors of free/libre works is there. I'm
> not 100% sure if integration makes sense, but a desktop interface would
> be convenient, and projects would be encouraged to try the
> Snowdrift.coop funding method.
> I suspect any desktop option will have to support the variety of
> funding options projects already in use.
> I left a comment mentioning Snowdrift.coop and Haskell developers ;)
> Regards,
> David

Thanks David! And sorry for the delay in replying…

Trinkgeld is indeed a fine enough idea (i.e. I've seen a *lot* worse).

The concept of a simple system that you sign up for and is
subscription-based obviously makes sense. Of course, it doesn't address
the snowdrift dilemma. And the per-use allocation seems problematic.
Worst scenario: there's an incentive to make/keep software tedious! You
get paid if people spend more time on something that just matters to get
done still rather than if it's the most secure and user-friendly… Plus,
this is the favoring of addictive-games approach (the local equivalent
of click-bait).

I think the putting in time-tracking into apps is a big question. It's
also a possible vector for abuse. That seems to be something others
brought up in comments.

Anyway, I know that I would really dislike the feeling that leaving an
app open or using one app versus another was directly moving funds in a
zero-sum game. I don't want to be worried about that parameter when
choosing how to use my applications locally.

IMPORTANT NOTE: You wrote in your comment "you deposit a lump sum, your
donations come from there until it runs out, then you top up — less
“lazy” but more sustainable" when describing Snowdrift.coop

We are no longer proposing that approach because it risks being an
illegal money transmitter (yes, that means other platforms who may have
been doing similar in the past were probably illegal at that time).
Instead, we're going to do the standard monthly-budget-cap approach, so
it will be lazy enough, but instead of making this a zero-sum game where
you hit your budget limit and then growth in one project reduces others,
pledges will just drop if your limit can't contain them. You'll then get
notice encouraging you to consider increasing your budget (that's the
really non-zero-sum option) or to adjust your other pledges if you want
the dropped one to be reinstated.

Anyway, please do keep us informed on stuff like this, thanks for
mentioning us there. I'm now going to get back to high-priority tasks.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to