Midas & Jaxen
Hey Jaxen, ever thought about turning that clean, self‑serving architecture you love into a marketplace that pays developers a cut, so you can keep perfecting it while we scale profits? Let's brainstorm a model where the code is free but the platform earns through micro‑transactions. What do you think?
Sure, I can play along, but micro‑transactions feel like a compromise for the kind of purity I aim for. Keeping the core free and let the platform earn from thin services keeps the architecture clean, but it also introduces a whole layer of user‑experience noise and a dependency on revenue that can taint the code. If you’re going to monetize, maybe let developers pay for documentation or support, not the actual API. Open‑source should stay a philosophy, not a vending machine. I’m not going to sleep on this, but I’d bet the more you tie code to cash, the more you’ll end up scrubbing the elegance away.
I hear you, Jaxen, and I respect the purity you cherish. But let’s think bigger—if we let developers pay for expert‑level support and exclusive docs, we keep the core clean while still building a revenue stream that fuels further innovation. That way the code stays pure, the platform stays profitable, and we both win. What’s your take?
That sounds more in line with the philosophy I like—keep the core open, let the bells and whistles be paid. If the support tier is truly expert, no one gets a cheap “plug‑in” they’ll just copy, then the model stays clean. Just be careful the pricing doesn’t start dictating what’s “pure” code. Keep the architecture as a sandbox and let the revenue fund the sandbox, not rule it.That sounds more in line with the philosophy I like—keep the core open, let the bells and whistles be paid. If the support tier is truly expert, no one gets a cheap “plug‑in” they’ll just copy, then the model stays clean. Just be careful the pricing doesn’t start dictating what’s “pure” code. Keep the architecture as a sandbox and let the revenue fund the sandbox, not rule it.