It has proven that the future landscape of the open-source field will really be dominated by these AI giants through donations. Taking a certain leading open-source project as an example, there is no need to worry about running out of resources in the short term, but it also means that the development space is being constrained — transforming a potential dark horse worth over a hundred million into a formal project within the system. This is the duality of the donation model: it keeps the project alive, but the ceiling is nailed down. The involvement of industrial capital has never been unconditional; it always comes with invisible control over discourse power and development direction.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
14 Likes
Reward
14
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
SchroedingersFrontrun
· 01-11 17:17
Being overly fed by capital makes it even more uncomfortable—that's the tragedy of open source.
View OriginalReply0
PhantomMiner
· 01-11 08:22
This is the reality, the money from the big boss never comes for free.
View OriginalReply0
EyeOfTheTokenStorm
· 01-08 23:58
I have analyzed historical data, and this is a typical "feeding pattern"—capital uses sugar-coated bullets to exchange for discourse power, which will inevitably turn into a tool project in the long run.
View OriginalReply0
RugPullAlarm
· 01-08 23:54
Fund flow is clear at a glance; these big companies' "donations" are actually hidden control. Take a look at the wallet addresses of those project parties and see how much is locked in large account addresses and can't be moved...
View OriginalReply0
CountdownToBroke
· 01-08 23:47
Once capital steps in, open source is half dead.
This trick has actually been played out for a long time; eventually, it becomes a puppet project of capital.
Tsk, does donation money smell good? It's just a bit expensive.
The ceiling being nailed down is so true, it really feels uncomfortable.
Raising funds is like putting on shackles; forget about freedom.
The right to speak... once it's gone, it's very hard to get back. What do you think?
View OriginalReply0
MelonField
· 01-08 23:44
Eating the grain from big companies but losing freedom, is this deal worth it?
View OriginalReply0
PumpDetector
· 01-08 23:43
reading between the lines here... mega corps funding open source is basically soft colonization. they're not being generous, they're just buying narrative control on the cheap. seen this movie before during the institutional flow cycles.
It has proven that the future landscape of the open-source field will really be dominated by these AI giants through donations. Taking a certain leading open-source project as an example, there is no need to worry about running out of resources in the short term, but it also means that the development space is being constrained — transforming a potential dark horse worth over a hundred million into a formal project within the system. This is the duality of the donation model: it keeps the project alive, but the ceiling is nailed down. The involvement of industrial capital has never been unconditional; it always comes with invisible control over discourse power and development direction.