So, here's the key text of the Commons Clause:
Without limiting other conditions in the License, the grant of rights under the License will not include, and the License does not grant to you, the right to Sell the Software.
> Ultimately, people want to keep their code open, develop in the open, bring in contributors, make it easy to adopt and audit their code, etc.
The Commons Clause doesn't really change any of that from the base license. It says so explicitly - "Without limiting other conditions..."
> They also want to eat and have a home.
This is the very thing that the Commons Clause tries to prohibit: "the License does not grant to you, the right to Sell the Software."
In other words, it's a way for the maintainers of a project to say that they get to sell the software, but nobody else does.
Which, hey, I develop proprietary software for a living, I'm fine with doing that in the general case. What I don't like is trying to mix that kind of restriction into an open source license. Because then what you're saying is, you want other people to contribute code, and you want to be able to benefit financially from those contributions, but you expect it to be a one-way street. There's a basic principle of fairness at play there.
If you want to do that kind of thing, I'd say it's much preferable to go with something more like the oldschool "dual GPL/commercial licensing" approach. Or, if it fits your needs better, something like one of the non-OSI Microsoft Shared Source licenses.