Open-sourced software (apps whose code base is available to the public) has revolutionized the way many applications and software businesses behave with respect to their users. Thanks to open-source software, users are able to place trust into their apps by seeing the underlying framework, and developers find it far easier to collaborate with each other and fix certain bugs within them. This benefit actually led to the creation of Bitcoin, which almost everyone on Steemit is familiar with and use on a personal basis.
That being said, certain questions pertaining to open source arise when placed within the current economic structure of the world. I will go through each question in this post, my reasoning behind reaching said question, and open it for discussion in the comments section.
1. How can blockchain applications be profitable for the developers if developer fees are frowned upon in open-source?
Say I were to make an application that utilized blockchain, and I wanted to craft this application in such a way that it added value to society on its own accord, whilst simultaneously allowing me to eat and live another day to work on said application. Since donations generally never work, I go ahead and build-in a 10% fee on every transaction which goes to the developer of the project.
Two scenarios:
Suppose that users don't trust my application because many of the apps like it are available freely and open-sourced. I am then forced to open the source of my code if I wish to remain profitable. A competitor then comes and forks my code and drops the developer fee down to 4%. Eventually this catches wind and my user base flocks over to his application. Is there a good way to mitigate this issue, or is software almost doomed to be open-sourced and non-profitable?
Suppose that users don't care about the closed-sourced and fee nature of the project and use it anyways, but then another developer comes and released an open-sourced, fee-less version of it, and he has enough cash flow already to sustain himself. For instance, I develop a paid application, and JP Morgan releases the same application for free. Or better yet, suppose that there is an open-sourced application that starts from the grassroots, but then JP Morgan releases a closed-source alternative, which the users trust because they've been around far longer and have a massive level of influence and a far larger marketing budget?
2. How can proprietary applications keep up with free and open-source software?
Open-sourced software tends to discourage for-profit platforms that operate under the same niche, because they are often used as a free alternative.
Open-sourced softwares though, generally don't make money, and as such are buried under the weight of time much faster than closed-sourced applications.
Blockchain applications force people to pay for the software they're running via transaction fees and gas, but alternatives with lower fees will always be preferred. Hence, if there is a blockchain application that serves a certain purpose, then there will be (for instance) a centralized alternative that allows its users the freedom to not pay money for every single thing they do on said platform, or an open-sourced solution that doesn't pay its developers.
Gradually, people will gravitate towards the things that give them the most bang for the least buck. Why should I pay $9 for nuts at Publix when I can get the same product for $7 at WalMart? Why do I have to pay $1.50 of Ethereum gas just to make an account at Ethlance, when I can make one for free on Freelancer?
3. How can we allow content creators to remain financially solvent without turning their platforms into a struggle for human attention, instead of a free expression of consciousness?
YouTube is a prime example of what happens when content creators are monetized. Casual funny videos and real conversations in the early days have turned into emotional punch bowls, constant sensationalism and all-caps in titles, along with speedy jump-cuts and 10-minute long videos just to get more revenue.
Steemit is an example of a "Pay to play" system. The front-page has been entirely dictated by vote-bots for several months now. As a matter of fact, vote-bots seem to make well over 90% of the Steem rewards... is this an unavoidable matter when dealing with open-sourced or easy to interact with APIs? Is genuine expression always going to come in second behind what makes the most money?
As much as this topic can extend to the entirety of human society, I'd better leave it there. We want to create a global blockchain system, however with open-sourced initiatives basically pushing out developers that wish to be sustained by their work, there seems to be cause for alarm when this dream of "freedom for humanity" is placed in the context of the world we live in: A world where open-sourcing your code is great for transparency and trust, but horrible for business.
And a Bonus Question:
Can blockchain work fully as intended without a global surveillance state?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments.
⭐ Want a small share of the post rewards? Retweet this post and be entered to win ⭐
View this post on Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface
Important Questions Regarding Open-Source... | Ecency
How to Fix Internet Not Working in Linux VMware (Windows 11 VM)an1info ·
