5 ms·
This is true also outside of the platform and in any business whatsoever. The payee is always at risk of not being paid. That said I believe this system will ov
by shaharsol 11y ago
This is true also outside of the platform and in any business whatsoever. The payee is always at risk of not being paid. That said I believe this system will overall prove to reduce risk for developers and increase overall collecting ratio. The tasks that are being dealt here are meant to be small and specific. Not full scale projects. And once a merge happens, the payment is immediate. Also, a developer that uses this system heavily will have a never ending pipeline of work and won't be required to do marketing and customer care anymore, so all in all, their monthly income will increase.
- brudgers 11y agoJust to be clear that the payee is not always at risk, I am in the habit of requiring retainers applicable against final invoice, i.e. the risk rides with the payer not the payee. In other words my clients are typically vetted by requiring them to write a check and pay for the work I do not "only if they like it". Anyway, I expect that the problem this is meant to solve is more likely to be driven by the supply side than the demand side...there's an unending line of people who want better free software and a shortage of people who are capable of delivering it with quality. On the other hand, if the platform backs up developers against non-payment, then there is an alignment of interests toward screening for good customers. It would also put some money behind the assumption that the payees are going to tend to be good actors.