What I'm saying is that all projects NEED to have a shared financial incentive in order to have any chance at becoming self-sustaining and encouraging collaboration. It's orthogonal to the quality of the product. Monetary incentives provide the baseline for survival of the project in our modern, godless society. Look at any popular OSS project which exists today and you will see a connection to big money. This is no coincidence.

It's hypocritical to suggest that this is dirty or unethical when the entire economy including all popular open source projects depend on these same kinds of financial incentives to exist.

The modern monetary system is corrupt to the core and yet it drives every single human interaction and every single collaboration. Let's not pretend it doesn't.

> You believe that OSS would be better off with more bribes ...

I agree, but I'm very confused about the original proposal because I think fiat is not good enough for bribes.

Bribes are not suitable for aligning financial incentives because they are illegal (both to solicit and to offer).

On the other hand, if a financial instrument exists which is coupled to a specific economic service, then no solicitation or offering step is necessary in order to align incentives between a provider and a supplier.

Also, note that this is not insider trading. Insider trading means that a trade was made after an event occurred but before that event was made public. In this case, the trade is made first, before the event occurred.

I thing the GP is not talking about literal bribes that are ilegal. The idea is that every time someone fills a feature request the maintainer replies with a link to a bitcoin address a price, and until the money is in that address the maintainer does not implement the feature.