> Use it as a loss-leader to get developer mindshare Right, that's why they paid 7.5B to acquire GitHub and are further investing in it to be more appealing to

> Use it as a loss-leader to get developer mindshare Right, that's why they paid 7.5B to acquire GitHub and are further investing in it to be more appealing to developers and gain even more mind share. > Or, they can use GitHub to build a open platform for the entire ecosystem. Is that code for not shipping developer focused features they've released since acquiring GitHub? Most of the features like free private repos and package repositories have been well received. > What of these two options are the best for users of the platform? For users, definitely all the features they're taking advantage of now that didn't exist before. > Sure, if you think of it as OpenCollective vs GitHub. I'm purely viewing it from the developer's perspective on what would attract more funding/sponsorship, which is by far the more convenient and integrated solution for all reasons already mentioned in my previous comments above. I view this as a massive potential that could spur on a whole new wave of sustainable OSS development similar to what YouTube/Twitch are doing for content creators. This was never a consideration of GitHub before but with this announcement it's now become a strategic focus which I hope will be continually improved on over time.