The incentives if you sell support is to make your software harder to use, design it poorly so that it breaks and people need you to rescue them when something bad happens, or simply deliver security patches timely. The first two and are against my principles and the latter simply doesn't apply unless you're a behemoth like RedHat or likely insecure or mission-critical so if breaches do happen it's a very big deal.

My particular project is designed to run in AWS and help reduce my users' bills. I spent a lot of time and effort to make it as easy to install as possible and to minimize friction, runtime costs and security risks for my users (it's entirely serverless based on Lambda and can be installed in minutes).

The side effects of these decisions are that it's so stable,secure and easy to use that pretty much nobody really needs any help with it, and that it is quite unlikely to break in the future by itself(although I see it break from time to time because AWS often changes some things that I depend on but I usually address these quickly as well), so getting a support plan doesn't make so much sense.

I mainly get these support plans sold to a handful of very enthusiastic users who would otherwise donate much smaller amounts.

I tried to bundle these with a guarantee that the supported code is thoroughly tested while the trunk is best effort, but that doesn't seem to work yet.