Inflation based is undoubtedly the best, but it involves a lot of uncertainty of how to allocate the money. The easiest option would be to have a central granting body, but a dispute about removing that granting body would be extremely contentious and drawn out, like a 10x worse ProgPow dispute.
This is an older article but it's such a good fulcrum for the "funding open-source" conversation. It states the need for rewarding maintainers and explores the OSS funding space.
I think funding open-source is top of mine for everyone right now and the goal of a lot of different projects.
For example, OScoin. They are proposing a permissionless network protocol that enables an open-source crypto-economy based on the concept of inflation funding/block rewards. Their #whitepaper: http://oscoin.io/oscoin.pdf
I'm really excited about OScoin's approach. Even though I am often questionable of "network approaches", I think it makes a whole lot of sense for open-source funding
Another one is SourceCred and their development on SourceGrain. SourceCred creates reputation networks for open-source projects. SourceGrain is the next step: project-specific cryptoassets, called grain, for open-source projects rewarded to developers for contributing to the project directly.
Check out the mission statement here: https://github.com/sourcegrain/mission
Lane Rettig's thread pulls great commentary from both projects after questioning the use of "crypto-economics" to drive network value:
"it's essential to divide value-creation along intrinsic vs. extrinsic lines. Creating value for folks _inside_ your economy with a token isn't hard. The hard part is creating _extrinsic_ value. This is the part that I find most projects skip or fail to appreciate."
What do other's think of these approaches to open-source funding?
The idea of inflationary funding has resonated with me, since first hearing about it in the context of Livepeer and Decred. I’d be curious to hear the perspectives’s of @cburniske & @jbrukh on the models discussed in this article 🤔