Making something sustainable is a different problem and a different set of skills.

I have nothing against anyone who wants to do both. I'm just saying some variant of what I'm thinking has to be why it's not as popular as you want or expect.

Something else worth considering is that people can actually be much better at (and better off) doing things they're not so passionate about.

This isn't just about devs being precious about their feelings or capacity to work. It's about control. Corrupting the direction of the project was my original point and where most of my disagreement comes from.

I would not expect most workers in any field to be so naive. The amount of convincing and money it usually takes to get someone to give up control is necessarily greater than what it was originally worth to that person. More often than not, creative people are also sophisticated enough to see that they may not fully appreciate the meaning of their project longer term right now, and the default answer has to be "no" possibly forever.

Someone asking a creative person to give even an inch of control is the one in need, not the other way around. They have to be on the creative person's level to get anywhere. Even just simple collaboration or discussion can be difficult if they don't feel it's fair. This is a very tall order and at that point they might as well stop begging and manipulating and just do it themselves.

That's what makes open source so great. Go ahead and fork it, but you're not getting the passion or skill or vision as part of the deal.

At some point you have to take a step back and wonder what you thought you were buying by giving the creator any money. This is where it falls apart.

Again, this isn't even stubbornness or selfishness. Negotiation is a skill that only gets tougher the more value is at stake. Most devs can make enough money just fine doing something else and still maintain full control. This is almost exactly why the jobs that pay the best are some of the most meaningless. Nobody is fighting for control over that stuff.

They already have it all just by being themselves. They are the stewards of true value keeping the world from becoming a hellhole foolishly and singularly concerned with money. In other words, if they didn't know something you don't, you wouldn't be offering them money (and only money). :-)

That's really fascinating, thanks. You've given me lots to think about.

I spend a lot of time thinking about the different structures associated with patronage. I remember that at one point David Bowie released a public offering of shares in his future value. If memory serves, the outcomes were mediocre but not a loss.

I actually think that this is kind of awesome. To me, the key detail is modest returns. Every asset class is volatile but our society has taken a really hard turn towards celebrating rent seeking. If someone has capital and can be convinced to give someone the financial leverage that they need to, for example, buy a truck instead of becoming the employee of a guy who bought a fleet of trucks with someone else's money, that's a formula for raising a lot of people up through middle class ranks.

Now, some people would take that advance and go to Vegas and do the least responsible thing, for sure. But I'm into giving people the benefit of doubt when possible.

I don't think we really disagree so much as I'm holding optimism that there are still big ideas and techniques that we haven't thought of, yet. I am guided by a confidence that we are more likely to succeed when we don't assume that things need to work in a certain way.