For me at least the definition of an open protocol is one where the spec is published and anyone can develop a complete implementation by following it which is

For me at least the definition of an open protocol is one where the spec is published and anyone can develop a complete implementation by following it which is free from licenses, royalties, etc. I don't understand exactly what the proposed business model is or how it works here. If the business model is for Company X to develop and release a new open protocol which requires that implementations pay them cryptocurrency upon use, what's to stop implementers from just not implementing that part of the spec? Or if the business model is that the protocol is both open and free, and Company X issues some new cryptocurrency in the hopes that people will speculate on it, why would they do that? By this article's own admission business models built around open protocols have disadvantages versus those built around closed protocols. So why would anyone want to bet on this company's future by buying its currency? I guess the one thing I could see working would be if the company built not only the open protocol, but the initial user base to go along with it. If that user base was large enough before other implementations appeared, subsequent implementers might go ahead and pay whatever taxes the original implementer imposes in order to gain access to that user base. But this would imply that companies shouldn't launch with open protocols, they should only open up their protocol after it has succeeded; and also if the originator of the protocol controls such a large part of the user base, I don't see what stops them from moving those users to new versions of the protocol which progressively raise the fees they charge other implementors. It bears mentioning that few if any of the open protocols we enjoy today were commercial projects which originated in the private sector and had a profit motive. If we can come up a way to align maximum profits with being open then that is great but it's worth considering other approaches as well. For example if a single, entrenched company controls a particular protocol with a large user base then developing an open alternative might be a good way for a consortium of competitors and other interested parties to collaborate and build a user base large enough to compete. Government might be justified in supporting such efforts as well. If there aren't already examples of governments getting involved when they view their national security to be at stake, we will see this soon.