It's no secret that a massive funding hole exists at the heart of the open source space. To illustrate this, OpenSSL was receiving roughly USD$2000 a year in donations just prior to the "Heartbleed" security vulnerability. It's hard to comprehend how this figure could be so low for something so widely used, given that the total cost of the vulnerability has since been estimated as high as USD$500 million. One can only imagine what the number will be in the fallout of the more recent Log4j vulnerability...

As project maintainers resort to a variety of fundraising methods, it's clear that the ecosystem is still yet to adopt a truly sustainable model attractive to those who not only build OSS, but those who use it too.
I recently came across an interesting piece from the team at Unison Computing, who formed a public benefit corporation to support the development of a friendly, open source language for distributed programming. What really stood out to me in their approach was the importance they placed on establishing a clear product-market fit from the outset. Surely that’s an obvious move... as it should be for any other business or startup! However, most OSS products are only ever commercialised after the underlying project has achieved wild popularity.

It's easy to accuse corporations of freeloading and exploiting OSS for their own financial gain, but I don't think the ecosystem has done enough to create transparent funding channels with a clear quid pro quo.
Dan Lorenc, founder of ChainGaurd and former engineer at Google, admits that whilst funding is easy, distribution is hard. If we take a moment assume the budget is out there and that companies are willing to support OSS, how and where should they allocate their resources? More importantly, how can project maintainers not only help them answer this question, but create better incentives around fundraising in the process?

In the business world, many of these problems are solved by traditional corporate entities, operating within the scope of a solid business plan and raising capital through the sale of shares - like the Unison project. Yes, OSS isn't typically conceived to turn a profit, however I believe the right organisational structure can facilitate greater transparency in fundraising, ownership and collaboration.

It begs the question... why aren't we adopting more blockchain-based solutions?

Yes, yes I know what you’re thinking - blockchain has had a bad rap. Actually, a terrible rap. The space has been plagued by Ponzi schemes and people trying to make a quick buck off the back of a fad with little to no underlying substance. That being said, distributed autonomous organisations (or DAOs) offer huge potential, particularly when it comes to enabling collectively-owned, blockchain-governed organisations around OSS.

What if maintainers could capture the value of OSS through the sale of “tokens”, underpinned by a compelling business plan or product-market fit? What if these “tokens” granted rights in a given project to would-be investors? It seems like a clear solution to the broader fundraising problem facing the ecosystem, and perhaps one capable of ushering in an entirely new breed of open-source products.