You had my interest until "source available". Especially when you used MIT from the start and changed it later. FOSS hackers like me feel betrayed by moves like that because your product was built on FOSS others created and you are not paying that forward.

Also, I for one would never invest a second in tools I cannot freely modify and share the code of under OSI terms. I would strongly suggest a convenience tax model. Hackers will self host and maybe contribute but those with more money than time will put in a credit card. Maybe offer end to end encrypted memory and compute to secure enclaves where additional compute on the data can be done when the laptop is closed. (Shameless plug, this is what https://caution.co enables, and 100% FOSS)

However, with "source available" you are just begging for someone to AI launder your code into a FOSS clone you will have 0 recourse on. If you FOSS it yourself then you get to capture the FOSS community destined to form around this idea. Some of that community will have bosses that will pay you.

MIT may not be the right play though. AGPL is a good middle ground as it flips the script. Corpo lawyers are allergic to AGPL and will pay for an alternative license, but for community hackers that might want to improve and recommend your code it offers no restrictions.

Hey I'm sorry that it's not convenient license for you, and you're right that we should have set this license early on instead of switching.

We're open to more feedback, things could change in the future