3 ms·

You know, they could use utility tokens as a way to monetize open source software. Have they looked into it? In order to do that, they would have to use a stro

by EGreg 3y ago

You know, they could use utility tokens as a way to monetize open source software. Have they looked into it? In order to do that, they would have to use a strong network effect to lock in their audience and make it more costly to fork the whole ecosystem than just keep paying for the utility. What is the alternative? Everyone who is silently downvoting — I would LOVE to hear a viable alternative.

wmf 3y ago
You're name-dropping utility tokens as if we know what those are but we don't. Somebody needs to explain exactly how these utility tokens would work before we'll take them seriously.
- EGreg 3y ago
  A utility token is a decentralized token you pay to a provider in order to do a service for you. Maybe it's hosting. Maybe it's manual work. Maybe it's AI credits. Maybe -- like in the case of RHEL - it's licensing fees. Think about it like the API credits and quotas that you are given by an API provider, except more decentralized. You can use trustlines to make it a lot more scalable, meaning the provider only closes out the trustline and posts it to the blockchain to collect the tokens, once in a while, not on every micropayment. Here is an example: https://qbix.com/ecosystem https://qbix.com/ecosystem
tonyarkles 3y ago
(Note: I am engaging in good faith. I'm not arguing against utility tokens, I'm just not sure I get how they're applicable) I read your sibling comment and I'm still not sure I get this: > they could use utility tokens as a way to monetize open source software First, who is "they" in this context? RedHat? > use a strong network effect to lock in their audience and make it more costly to fork the whole ecosystem than just keep paying for the utility > Maybe -- like in the case of RHEL - it's licensing fees. I'm trying to parse this and I'm just not following. What's the "monetize open source" business model here with utility tokens? RedHat's current business model is: "Set up a contract where businesses pay money every month, in exchange for access to RHEL builds and technical support, whether or not they use that tech support in a given month." I think I conceptually get what a "utility token" is from having a skim through the QBUX site, but... I don't really get how it would change things in this case, other than likely making it more difficult for people to pay for RHEL subscriptions? > What is the alternative? Everyone who is silently downvoting — I would LOVE to hear a viable alternative. I think the trick is that the viable alternative is the status quo. You haven't really explained how this would lead to RedHat making more money every month than how they're doing business currently.
- EGreg 3y ago
  But aren't people complaining about the status quo, and RedHat infringing on open source rights? With the utility tokens approach, they wouldn't need to restrict those rights. I guess that's the point. Whether the people are complaining about Google, Apple, Reddit, Twitter or any number of corporations, it's like, they have no solutions other than 1) complaining, 2) complaining to the government, but regardless of that, anything related to Web3 is dismissed out of hand, leaving no viable alternative solutions at all. I don't think "the status quo" is what people have in mind as a solution when they are complaining.
  - tonyarkles 3y ago
    > But aren't people complaining about the status quo, and RedHat infringing on open source rights? Yup, people are complaining about the status quo. RedHat may be, in spirit, infringing on the freedoms granted by the GPL, but in practice I would generally bet that RedHat/IBM's lawyers figure that they're not legally doing anything wrong. If you read between the lines here at who's complaining and what they're complaining about, it's not generally speaking RedHat's paying customers. A few might be but by and large it's people who want to run RHEL-compatible alternatives without buying RedHat's support contracts. > With the utility tokens approach, they wouldn't need to restrict those rights. I still don't get what you mean when you say that. Let's say I spin up a corporation called BlueHat. My goal is to make a rock solid, stable, long-term support Linux distribution and provide for-pay technical support for clients. I also want to make a healthy profit while doing so. How would that work with utility tokens? Is there something I'm missing where a utility token would make it feasible to share the complete source and build instructions for the distribution I'm putting together while still having enough revenue to pay everyone every two weeks and have some left over to take home and buy food with? Edit: > anything related to Web3 is dismissed out of hand I am, honest to God, not at all trying to dismiss this. I'm trying to understand how I would set up a business model similar to RedHat within this kind of framework. Developers and techs that I hand-select and hire to provide an OS distribution that we control and provide paid support for, while all of us making enough money to pay our mortgages and buy food every two weeks.

by EGreg 3y ago

wmf 3y ago

You're name-dropping utility tokens as if we know what those are but we don't. Somebody needs to explain exactly how these utility tokens would work before we'll take them seriously.

EGreg 3y ago
A utility token is a decentralized token you pay to a provider in order to do a service for you. Maybe it's hosting. Maybe it's manual work. Maybe it's AI credits. Maybe -- like in the case of RHEL - it's licensing fees. Think about it like the API credits and quotas that you are given by an API provider, except more decentralized. You can use trustlines to make it a lot more scalable, meaning the provider only closes out the trustline and posts it to the blockchain to collect the tokens, once in a while, not on every micropayment. Here is an example: https://qbix.com/ecosystem https://qbix.com/ecosystem

tonyarkles 3y ago

(Note: I am engaging in good faith. I'm not arguing against utility tokens, I'm just not sure I get how they're applicable) I read your sibling comment and I'm still not sure I get this: > they could use utility tokens as a way to monetize open source software First, who is "they" in this context? RedHat? > use a strong network effect to lock in their audience and make it more costly to fork the whole ecosystem than just keep paying for the utility > Maybe -- like in the case of RHEL - it's licensing fees. I'm trying to parse this and I'm just not following. What's the "monetize open source" business model here with utility tokens? RedHat's current business model is: "Set up a contract where businesses pay money every month, in exchange for access to RHEL builds and technical support, whether or not they use that tech support in a given month." I think I conceptually get what a "utility token" is from having a skim through the QBUX site, but... I don't really get how it would change things in this case, other than likely making it more difficult for people to pay for RHEL subscriptions? > What is the alternative? Everyone who is silently downvoting — I would LOVE to hear a viable alternative. I think the trick is that the viable alternative is the status quo. You haven't really explained how this would lead to RedHat making more money every month than how they're doing business currently.

EGreg 3y ago
But aren't people complaining about the status quo, and RedHat infringing on open source rights? With the utility tokens approach, they wouldn't need to restrict those rights. I guess that's the point. Whether the people are complaining about Google, Apple, Reddit, Twitter or any number of corporations, it's like, they have no solutions other than 1) complaining, 2) complaining to the government, but regardless of that, anything related to Web3 is dismissed out of hand, leaving no viable alternative solutions at all. I don't think "the status quo" is what people have in mind as a solution when they are complaining.
- tonyarkles 3y ago
  > But aren't people complaining about the status quo, and RedHat infringing on open source rights? Yup, people are complaining about the status quo. RedHat may be, in spirit, infringing on the freedoms granted by the GPL, but in practice I would generally bet that RedHat/IBM's lawyers figure that they're not legally doing anything wrong. If you read between the lines here at who's complaining and what they're complaining about, it's not generally speaking RedHat's paying customers. A few might be but by and large it's people who want to run RHEL-compatible alternatives without buying RedHat's support contracts. > With the utility tokens approach, they wouldn't need to restrict those rights. I still don't get what you mean when you say that. Let's say I spin up a corporation called BlueHat. My goal is to make a rock solid, stable, long-term support Linux distribution and provide for-pay technical support for clients. I also want to make a healthy profit while doing so. How would that work with utility tokens? Is there something I'm missing where a utility token would make it feasible to share the complete source and build instructions for the distribution I'm putting together while still having enough revenue to pay everyone every two weeks and have some left over to take home and buy food with? Edit: > anything related to Web3 is dismissed out of hand I am, honest to God, not at all trying to dismiss this. I'm trying to understand how I would set up a business model similar to RedHat within this kind of framework. Developers and techs that I hand-select and hire to provide an OS distribution that we control and provide paid support for, while all of us making enough money to pay our mortgages and buy food every two weeks.