GroundPlane

A balance definitely needs to be struck and I'm hopeful that I am on the right side of it. Thank you for your support, it means a lot

I'm trying to lay a plan in my head where some software parts of the project could be made as graduate projects. If I can get key teachers in on it they could really help out. I'll draft a plan in my head and try to gather people who showed interest here for a meeting once a better-crafted top-level view is set

Got you. It is a shame that this part of crypto is not more widely publicized, as it is its most interesting use in my eyes.

Still think it can't be the only solution if we want wider reach. To avoid taxes and legal structures, I want to study whether we can interface with projects' available donation options and automatically split a user donation into several. Skipping the "finding the donation option for each project" problem which can be tediously human-solved for a proof of concept, the issue would be whether the process could be easy for the user while not getting obliterated by transaction fees.

There is no need to develop a crypto side since I'm sure a way to interface with Kivach could be found if the other fiat currency problems are solved beforehand.

Thank you for your input, it means a lot.

It is crucial indeed. That makes the project more of a central donation platform removed from the dev world, but it is simpler as such

Ideally you would let picky users override every setting and provide fair enough defaults. That includes library donation cascading etc. At the end of the day it seems the core part of the project should be providing fair enough defaults

SPI is great, didn't know about it. Sadly, it would need more projects in it to be a core pillar of FOSS funding. They are clearly aiming to build something stable and that's good for them. But I feel like their application process is a little too long for simply distributing funds around.

You are not missing the point and bring up something my jaded views keep reminding me about. It is important to not believe too much in your efforts so as to stay grounded and not be too enthusiastic and get disappointed when downturns inevitably appear.

I'm battling between two approaches about data collection: the tedious manual entry on behalf of devs or the fully automated scrapping a la other existing efforts in the field

The solutions you linked are interesting but ultimately neglect the most important aspect in my opinion: discussion among stakeholders. They also tend to use bitcoin, which has proven it could not gain enough traction to be mainstream yet.

Taking the core principle of Kivach and making it viable in state-backed currency, using the platforms devs have already set up for payment would be a great leap forward. We need to get something going and build support from a critical mass.

Why is Kivach not more widely used? We should tackle these questions and try to improve it.

You are indeed a good motivator! The reason I did not want to make this post at first is that I need everything: people to brainstorm with, people that can carry the project, people with the skills to create a prototype, people who can convince FOSS projects to get on board, and people willing to encourage others to donate.

Overall too much labor, skills and connection for one person. I believe we would need a team of 10-15 volunteers, some already involved in projects, to put something up

Think Flattr where devs have a say in who gets what. A whole lot of problems to solve, but potential to be a central platform that devs actually want to join and advertise because they trust it

That would be a nice option for web-based stuff. I guess the whole difficulty is to get a list of projects and to publicize it widely. I also believe donations should be stupid simple or they will never take off.

The main difference between your idea and mine lies in who decides where the money goes. I do not think end users should decide 100%, because that ignores a lot of critical under-the-hood software. Users must however have a completely transparent report of who gets what. I guess at that point they should be able to adjust it to their whims, which circles back to your point 1.

Among distribution rules to be discussed, one of the first points would be who is eligible. I would not want corporations to be supported by these donations, but some companies actually focus on FOSS as a service and I could see them getting in on it. I would exclude devs employed at a company getting paid to contribute as well.

I think this would not drastically change the status quo. Today, corporations contribute to FOSS, but mostly to make sure their hardware or other software is well supported. They will still have that incentive if there is a central donation system that excludes them.