That's exactly npm's problem, though. What everybody is avoiding to say is that you need a concept of "trusted vendors". And, for the "OSS accelerates me" business crowd, that means paying for the stuff you use.
But who would want that when you're busy chasing "market fit".
I don't think that's the problem with npm. The problem with npm is that no packages are signed, at all, so it ends up trivial for hackers to push new package versions, which they obviously shouldn't be able to do.
That is, how does signing prevent publishing of malware, exactly?
Yeah, of course. Also if they hosted their private key for the signature on their public blog, anyone could use it for publishing.
But for the sake of the argument, why don't we assume people are correctly using the thing we're talking about?