I'd say there's a few issues with framing the problem this way. Project popularity and exposure does not necessarily correlate with funds raised. Many people wi

I'd say there's a few issues with framing the problem this way. Project popularity and exposure does not necessarily correlate with funds raised. Many people within the communities that a piece of software is popular within are not interested in funding it as up to that point the expectation for zero cost software has been generated. When the change to a funding model happens, who is specifying what is being worked on? who is benefiting from the new work? who would be expected to pay? What about backlash from the change in how the project evolves? In fashion people expect to pay for things and pay quite a lot to get what they consider to be quality. Do you think a similar attitude exists in the average user of open source software? As for the tail of your post, I'm confused. Are you trying to argue that the code is what is of value here or are you trying to argue that the work the developer can put into it is valuable? (from a funding standpoint)