Comment by romellem | Hacker News Reader

Comment by romellem | Hacker News Reader

These give some more information:

- https://medium.com/teaxyz/tea-brew-478a9e736638

- https://www.binance.com/en/blog/ecosystem/binance-labs-leads...

> Tea controls the graph of open source that underpins all modern digital infrastructure. Packages will be released on‐chain as NFTs with their dependency metadata included. As developers use Tea, governance tokens are available according to their real‐life usage to drive the entire open source ecosystem. ... “We’re not changing the nature of open-source. It’s still free,” explained co-founder Timothy Lewis. “Software wants to be free, but programmers need to be compensated. We’re bringing the creator economy to open source. Our vision is to fix how open-source is funded and create the tools that will accelerate its creation for the benefit of all humanity.”

and

> We’re moving the package registry on-chain (we’ll use a low-energy proof of stake chain). ... We’re not changing the nature of open source. It’s still free. web3 has enabled novel new ways to distribute value, and with our system people who care about the health of the open source ecosystem buy some token and stake it. Periodically, we reward this staking because it is securing our token network. We give a portion of these rewards to the staker and a portion to packages of their choice along with all the dependencies of those packages.

So... You can only get paid for your opens source via Tea if you pay massive gas fees to make an NFT for every release? Hobby projects with no funding and few users will be blocked from being available on Tea because they can't afford the gas fees to release an NFT? Perhaps the NFT only has to be issued when you update your dependencies? That's only slightly better and still imposes a huge roadblock for new package adoption, even if it's developers have little or no interest in being paid.

This seems like a very cynical attempt to take what money is going to larger OpenSource projects and divert it towards making cryptobros more money.

Even if all the issues with NFTs and crypto are put aside. I think there serious challenges with the model and how it incentivizes developers if each package doesn't have direct control over how much of their payouts go to each dependency.

This sounds like the ultimate in monetizing other people's work?

Nah, I'm sure they'll throw some (worthless) coins upstream.

Exposure coins

LMAO

I read the page and didn’t really understand what it was, just something vaguely crypto and tons of millenial buzzwords. The fact that they didn’t mention NFT once is interesting.

NFTs have been promoted so hard it's has fallen into the trough of disillusionment with the public. Makes it harder to announce your NFT project that is coming to fruition onw.

> We’re moving the package registry on-chain

Oh yes this will definitely result in an improvement of the situation.

> Packages will be released on‐chain as NFTs with their dependency metadata included

Hello yes, a concept called “DRM” is on the phone and it wants its licence money.

oh my

It's like they used all the business jargon words in that exact order to maximise how shallow and vaporware the whole pitch sounds. NFTs, graph, governance token, (not) changing the nature of open source, creator economy, for the benefit of all humanity.

Yeah, no.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com