It's a good idea. As a software engineer myself (and wearer of many other hats) - My first thought is that most people don't really know who is and is not a good developer - except through them being able to demonstrate past projects and even then it is not always easy to identify good from bad quality code and system design.
Any system of payment would need to take into account a way of accurately assessing the success of developers who are paid - otherwise it could end up being a negative instead of a positive.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I agree that it is hard to find worthwhile projects compared to other ones, but we could pay at certain points when the goal is met in order to make sure devs are doing work so x amount for phase 1 x amount for phase 2 ect.
What I am pointing to is that if a voting system is used to decide any aspect of this, then those who vote need to be technically skilled and that in itself opens the system up to some degree of corruption in that the skilled voters might be just voting for themselves and their friends. Maybe a payout curve would work, where payouts for development start small and get bigger, the further into a project the developer goes successfully.