I would be against this. This would push monetization into every little and trivial thing and the net has negatively developed by that. There are some exceptions and it enabled certain content creators to really take off, but it had downsides too. Theoretically you could crawl code on github or elsewhere and develop your own AI. Monetization would put that behind a wall. Think Youtube hobby videos getting banned for music playing in the background as soon a people monetize their videos and DMCA became widely enforced.

It is too abstract a problem for most people to understand the value of data because they just look at the presumably uninteresting data they share. But you can consent to such usages of course. I don't want foundations or NGO to own the data neither, this would be exceptionally horrible. Perhaps because I have horrible foundations in mind right now, but there is a lot of bullshit in this space. Overall it would be a worse situation than the status quo. I agree that banning isn't an option too. But a mechanism to withdraw consent of your data being used for AI training seems reasonable.

Gitcoin probably would work for developers, who are highly paid already and their code have high potential of being used in profitable projects. Not so well for artists who earn a fraction of developers' salary and their arts are already being treated like commodity.

I am not sure if it will work but worth experimenting. Probably you will have a certain limitations on free usage before the tokens.

I feel there has be an easy way for to earn digital rights, digital equity , digital money for the artistic minds in this digital era which is proliferating very fast.