[HN Gopher] Show HN: StackAid - Fund all your open-source depend...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: StackAid - Fund all your open-source dependencies
We strongly believe working on open source software should be a
viable source of income for many more developers. Unfortunately,
the following barriers limit the extent of open source funding: -
Only a small fraction of open source projects are funded, and most
money goes to a few notable projects. - Each project has to market
is self to get significant funding. - Large corporate donations
provide the bulk of the funding, making it unreliable and
unattainable for many. - Finding and supporting each of your
dependencies is a cumbersome task. Which ones, how much, and on
which platforms? So we built StackAid, a service that
automatically discovers and funds your direct and indirect (second
order) open source dependencies with a monthly subscription.
StackAid is early and has a unique allocation model, so we're
working with supporters and open source projects to validate the
experience further. We're matching subscriptions up to $100/month
during the beta.
Author : nevernude
Score : 173 points
Date : 2022-09-14 14:35 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.stackaid.us)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.stackaid.us)
| jacobr1 wrote:
| How are you dealing with tax implications?
| rvnx wrote:
| This is a well executed idea, the minus is that it is going to
| incentivize npm managers to create more and more spammy packages.
|
| Isn't there a risk that the creators of is-odd, is-even, upper-
| case are going to get quite a lot based on their millions of
| downloads (and indirect popularity) no ? Especially since they
| are interdependent
| nevernude wrote:
| I don't think it will be a major concern. A couple of thoughts:
|
| - We built a simulation[1] of the NPM ecosystem to see how
| funds would be allocated. Frivolous projects did not see any
| significant funding.
|
| - As I mentioned in other comments, you would still need to get
| many developer to actually use your new packages as either
| direct or second-order dependencies. Note that 2nd order
| dependencies receive quite a bit less allocation than direct
| ones.
|
| - You can always manually manage your dependencies if you see a
| project engaging in this behavior.
|
| 1. https://simulation.stackaid.us/projects
| qwerty3344 wrote:
| In the simulation you can see very common helper deps do
| receive quite a disproportionate amount of funding relative
| to the effort to maintain though. For example, `rimraf` (~400
| LOC), `del` (~100 LOC), `cross-env` (this one is archived)
| all receive a ton of funding, whereas major projects like
| `electron` get a small amount since it's not used as often
| even though it would be much more impactful if it were to
| fall into disrepair.
| boxcarr wrote:
| We thought a lot about the fairness of allocation. Large
| funding for tiny packages is a clear edge case of the
| StackAid model.
|
| We are thinking through how to give subscriptions control
| over projects and organizations to exclude, so you could
| choose to exclude tiny dependencies in your subscription.
|
| That said, defaults matter, and so it's still worth
| considering the implications of small projects getting a
| large amount of funding:
|
| 1. Subscriptions/open source repositories might be ok with
| a rimraf getting a lot of money, especially if it funds
| those developers to build other things that are high
| impact.
|
| 2. It might also inspire other open source projects to
| potentially compete for those funds in terms of offering
| something more or encouraging tooling that incorporates
| that functionality, thus creating a smaller set of
| dependencies.
|
| Re: Electron getting much less than these smaller projects
| in the simulation. Electron getting less money is a
| function of the NPM packages we discovered and sampled.
| That could or could not be a representative set. You could
| argue that Electron shows up more in non-public
| repositories. It doesn't mean that Electron would get more
| money than rimraf, but the gap could be significantly less.
| pagutierrezn wrote:
| something similar for java dependencies?
| boxcarr wrote:
| We support Java through a GitHub Action that generates a
| stackaid.json file that we consume with your first and second
| order dependencies. More details here:
| https://www.stackaid.us/#stackaid-json
| moralestapia wrote:
| Congrats guys and I wish you succeed with this project!
|
| This is the fist time I see a pyramid scheme that's actually a
| good thing :D
| nevernude wrote:
| StackAid founder here. There are a couple of questions that keep
| coming up that I thought I would address in one place.
|
| - People don't want to give money to Stripe, Meta, etc since
| their projects are already well funded by corporations. We agree!
| Right now, those projects can just not claim their funds which
| would then be reallocated, or they can pass their funds on to
| their dependencies instead. We are exploring other ways to allow
| you to exempt certain organizations/repositories from being
| funded.
|
| - People will try and game the system. They can try but they
| largely will not succeed because ultimately many developers will
| still need to be convinced to use and depend on their projects.
| How funds are allocated and what dependencies an open source
| project has is public knowledge and the community will rightly
| punish bad actors.
|
| Thanks for all the responses and feedback.
| Kukumber wrote:
| https://www.stackaid.us/github/Microsoft/dtslint
|
| who, how, why?
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| For those wondering:
|
| > How do you make money?
|
| > When you add your project dependencies, StackAid is treated as
| an implicit direct dependency. StackAid is on equal footing, but
| unlike those dependencies, StackAid's allocation is capped at
| 7.5%. In the example above, StackAid would receive $1.50/mo.
| brendonjohn wrote:
| I must be missing something here.
|
| On a donation of $10, their cut should be $0.75, given that's
| 7.5%.
| nevernude wrote:
| For a $10/month donation yes our max take would be $0.75. The
| example on the homepage is for a $20/month subscription.
| kredd wrote:
| The example in the middle uses $20 as a donation, not $10.
| Thus, $1.5.
| cphoover wrote:
| Seems interesting... But I wouldn't want to waste my donation to
| a multi-billion dollar company like stripe who should be paying
| for their own client library development, which is part of the
| value-proposition of their service.
| BazookaMusic wrote:
| How do you deal with the issue that a project might split itself
| in multiple modular parts to maximize the income from this
| scheme?
|
| If StackAid becomes popular, I could see developers going that
| route to maximize their income.
| nevernude wrote:
| Good question. There are a few factors that I think will
| mitigate this concern.
|
| - You still have to get developers to use and depend on these
| new projects.
|
| - Allocation happens on a per subscription basis, so to
| realistically take advantage of this scheme, you will need many
| developers to adopt your new projects.
|
| - Subscribers who notice maintainers doing this will be
| incentivized to vote with their dollars and change their
| dependencies to projects that aren't engaging in this behavior.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| i can manage my dependency list just fine and don't need an org
| to help me do that.
|
| i'd like a service that allows me to send payment to a
| dependency, i'll take it from there.
| spullara wrote:
| A more likely optimization would be to remove dependencies by
| copying their code into your repository if it has a permissive
| license.
| kube-system wrote:
| Interesting idea, but I'm not sure that the automatic allocation
| model would make logical sense for many of my projects.
|
| Some of my dependencies are complicated, critical, high-
| maintenance parts of my application, some are convenience
| wrappers for other more important sub-dependencies, and some are
| basic helper dependencies. Some are independent volunteer
| projects, and some are maintained by commercial companies by
| developers on salary. And some of them are libraries for services
| that I _already_ pay for, like aws-sdk.
|
| I don't think I could use something like this unless I can tweak
| the allocations.
| armini wrote:
| Valid point about tweaking allocation, I don't think
| React/Facebook needs more money compared to some other
| projects.
|
| Check out https://thanks.dev/ they have a similar solution but
| allow allocation control.
| slekker wrote:
| Lovely username
| qwerty3344 wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32841229 touched on this
| also, auto allocation would lead to disproportionate allocation
| for basic helper deps
| nevernude wrote:
| On an individual level allocation may seem a bit lopsided but,
| in aggregate, useful and popular projects will receive more
| funding.
|
| Commercial projects can either not claim their funds (which
| will be reallocated), or elect to pass their funds through to
| their dependencies.
|
| You also always have the option to explicitly list your
| dependencies.
| black_puppydog wrote:
| In aggregate the stripe and react dependencies in the example
| on the page might receive a pretty huge chunk and I'm not
| sure the stripe api should be funded by donations.
| nevernude wrote:
| If stripe doesn't want to participate (likely) their funds
| are reallocated. They also have the option to pass on funds
| to their dependencies
| capableweb wrote:
| So users of Stripe SDK ends up donating to Stripe SDK
| that reallocates those funds to the dependencies that
| makes the Stripe SDK possible to build, rather than
| Stripe donating money directly to those dependencies that
| makes it possible for them to build their SDK?
|
| I'd rather fund libraries that don't have huge companies
| behind them, and those companies should donate themselves
| to the dependencies they use, so I can spend my money on
| donating to libraries I depend on directly.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I could see current higher-level projects taking advantage of
| their "first in line" access to the subscriptions.
|
| I could also see people writing "wrappers," and intercepting
| the top-level contribution, then skimming a bit off the top,
| before sending them on.
|
| Face it. There's money to be made, and a _lot_ of really smart
| folks, with no ethics whatsoever, are more than willing to go
| for it. They 'll figure out how to game it.
|
| The bottle has been uncorked, and the genie has escaped.
| There's no putting the candy back in that pinata.
| nevernude wrote:
| We thought long and hard about how people could game the
| system but ultimately it will be quite difficult because you
| still have to convince a large number of developers to
| actually use and depend on your project. And since the flow
| of donations and dependencies is public, the community will
| not look kindly one individuals trying such tactics.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Fair 'nuff.
|
| I sincerely hope it works out. I have become somewhat
| cynical, and maybe that colors things.
| Amir6 wrote:
| What a fantastic idea. Is there an email address to contact you?
| nevernude wrote:
| Yes! You can reach out to me at wes@stackaid.us
|
| We also have a signup page https://www.stackaid.us/invite
| Amir6 wrote:
| Just sent you a note.
| lijogdfljk wrote:
| This is really cool. Is there a way to use this with Rust, yet?
|
| I'd be interested to donate say $15/m and then specify repos of
| mine, maybe mixed with some manually specified projects (ie for
| things i use in private, but i don't want to give access to my
| private repos), and have it split among them.
|
| but all of this is Rust-centric. Does that work yet? I'm super
| interested, this is a problem i've had with Github's Sponsor
| Program. Feels like a small amount of money doesn't go far with
| Github, this splitting solves it hypothetically!
| nevernude wrote:
| Yes, we have a GitHub action[1] that uses the dependency graph
| API to generate a stackaid.json file which will list your
| direct and indirect dependencies.
|
| 1. https://github.com/marketplace/actions/stackaid-
| dependency-g...
| lijogdfljk wrote:
| Awesome, signed up!
|
| Can i submit a stackaid.json manually? Ie for private
| repositories that i want to be counted towards my funding-
| split?
| nevernude wrote:
| Yes you can create one manually. If I'm understanding you
| correctly, private organizations you add to a stackaid.json
| file will be ignored. Our focus is on funding open source.
|
| But if you mean, can you commit a stackaid.json file in a
| private repository, yes absolutely. As long as the GitHub
| app is given access to that repo, we will discover it and
| fund dependencies specified in the stackaid.json file.
| lijogdfljk wrote:
| Another question if i may, do we have visibility over how
| funds have been accepted/moved/etc?
|
| it would be nice to know when library authors have
| actually received my funds, vs them not taking them for a
| few months and the funds moving to another library. This
| would let me as a user pester the author about funds
| they're missing, since i'm invested in them getting
| support i'm trying to give.
| nevernude wrote:
| Yes, projects with unclaimed funds have a notice at the
| top of their page. I think there is also an opportunity
| for us to show you which of your dependencies have been
| claimed in your dashboard.
| mbesto wrote:
| Super interesting, however you need an option for "this company
| commercially backs this repo so there is no need to donate".
|
| Let's be honest, it's hard for me to justify giving a developer
| at Facebook who makes $500k/year an extra $5/year because
| Facebook is footing the bill for their salary to maintain
| ReactJS.
| boxcarr wrote:
| No money goes to a repository that doesn't participate in
| StackAid. Whatever is allocated to them from a subscription,
| gets reallocated after a certain period of time.
|
| We are busy thinking through the best way to provide controls
| around allocation including specifying
| repositories/organizations you don't want to fund. This
| feedback is what we wanted to hear before we embarked on an
| approach.
|
| Some organizations might also specify that they don't ever want
| to receive money, and allowing us to avoid waiting to
| reallocate the money intended for their repositories. This is
| another option we're planning on exposing.
| nathancahill wrote:
| Essentially, developers/project have to opt-out from
| participating on your site.
|
| This is the problem that these "fund open source" projects
| run in to time and time again. Gittip (if I remember
| correctly) had the same issue. You're accepting funds under
| the name of various open source projects but not necessarily
| funding them. Often developers aren't even aware of the
| parallel funding channel and are rightfully upset about it.
|
| I'm not saying your intentions are bad, and as an open source
| developer I'd love for a funding model that worked. I've just
| seen tens of different iterations on this same idea and none
| have stuck.
| boxcarr wrote:
| I don't think it's analogous to gittip where someone is
| attempting to send funds to a particular repository or
| organization, and, I assume, you don't know the status of
| your funds.
|
| When subscribing to StackAid, you indicate that you'd like
| to support your dependencies. It's hopefully clear that
| their dependencies have to participate to receive their
| allocation. We're also upfront that not all OSS projects
| are interested or currently have a relationship with
| StackAid. As a result, allocation amongst dependencies will
| shift depending on the OSS project interested in
| participating, and that's an important feature that sets it
| apart from other funding models.
|
| All of that said, we've tried to be clear in the messaging
| and setting expectations. We're very much open to feedback
| to improve what we communicate.
| basetensucks wrote:
| If a library author or maintainer isn't a Stackaid user, what
| happens to their allocated funds?
| nevernude wrote:
| After a few months if the funds aren't claimed we will
| reallocate them to a subscriber's other direct dependencies.
| For the time being, if you accepting funds via GitHub Sponsors,
| Open Collective, etc. we will do our best to get money to you.
| dflock wrote:
| This sounds a lot like Tidelift, without their enterprise supply
| chain features?
| nevernude wrote:
| We are similar in that we use a monthly subscription that
| ultimately pays open source developers but I'd say that's where
| the similarities end. Tidelift is focused on security and
| vetting dependencies which is a noble effort! StackAid is
| focused on eliminating any friction and allowing many many more
| developers to be financially supported and make a living
| developing open source.
| karmelapple wrote:
| Glad to see you doing this!
|
| I like the value add that TideLift does, but the minimum buy-
| in for TideLift was more than we were willing to spend as a
| small startup. I felt bummed that we weren't able to help.
|
| No such problem here, though - expect me to signup very
| shortly :)
| soulofmischief wrote:
| Super fantastic idea. Signed up. Thanks for sharing!
| protontypes wrote:
| We tried something similar in the past:
| https://github.com/protontypes/LibreSelery
|
| Donation were distributed entirely through the CoinBase api by
| sending emails to each developer in the Git history.
|
| I wonder how you will divide the money among the developers.
| Giving money just to the project maintainers will not strengthen
| the community. Unfortunately, this is often exactly the area
| where support is needed to create sustainable open source in
| addition to fiscal support.
| fabiospampinato wrote:
| I love this idea.
|
| I just tried with a package.json of mine and 33% of the money
| seems to go to Microsoft/TypeScript, which seems odd for a bunch
| of reasons: they don't seem to have Github Sponsors setup, they
| don't seem to have an Open Collective either, and TS is owned by
| one of the wealthiest companies on the planet, so for it to suck
| up any meaningful percentage of all donations seems wrong.
|
| Edit: ah, sorry, per year figures are displayed in the breakdown
| table. So I guess TS would get more like 3%, which sounds way
| more reasonable.
| nevernude wrote:
| Projects like TS, React, etc that are already well unfunded
| most likely won't claim their funds which means they will be
| reallocated to your other dependencies after a few months.
|
| They will also have the option to be pass-through organizations
| which means that funds allocated to them will instead go to
| their dependencies.
|
| We are also exploring the idea of being able to declare a list
| of repos/organizations to exclude from being funded.
| mid-kid wrote:
| The idea is nice, but it seems heavily reliant on GitHub:
|
| > Owners of open source projects can claim their repositories by
| installing the StackAid GitHub app. As part of the claiming
| process, owners can associate one or more Stripe accounts with
| each repository they own to receive payments.
|
| While I'll admit that most of the modern ecosystem thrives on
| this site, especially when looking at the javascript ecosystem,
| there's a fair amount of projects that do not use this site at
| all. Are there any plans to tackle those?
|
| Also, the simulation[1] shows projects by meta and microsoft near
| the top. Since these are well-funded projects ran by huge
| companies, I'd be interested in excluding them from a donation
| graph, no matter what point in the tree they appear in. Is there
| any possibility of doing this?
|
| [1]: https://simulation.stackaid.us/projects
| nevernude wrote:
| Absolutely. We'd like to support GitLab and Bitbucket next but
| had to pick a starting point and GitHub was an obvious choice.
| If there are other providers you think we should pursue, let me
| know.
| mid-kid wrote:
| What about sr.ht, savannah.nongnu.org or self-hosted projects
| using cgit or gitea frontends, most of which lacking such
| integrations the likes of gitlab and bitbucket provide? I'm
| sure it's more difficult to support things like these, but
| I'm wondering how flexible the system is with regards to
| this.
| josevalerio wrote:
| Really nice idea, great job :)
| OJFord wrote:
| > So we built StackAid, a service that automatically discovers
| and funds your direct and indirect (second order) open source
| dependencies with a monthly subscription.
|
| Just to play.. I don't know, devil's take-advantager or whatever,
| if this gets popular isn't the 'smart' move to package your
| project as numerous components bundled up into one outer wrapper,
| with all other 'real' dependencies only dependencies of the
| component packages?
|
| That can be a legitimate packaging strategy of course, that's
| what made me think of it: 'it doesn't work for ...'; then 'oh
| wait it works really well for _that_ package(s) '.
| masukomi wrote:
| what's the thinking around supporting projects that aren't node
| based?
|
| I've got tons of dependencies but none of them involve JS.
|
| Also, what many node devs have multiple projects they rely on.
| what about a tool for auto-merging package.json files to make one
| to submit to you? Seems like right now a dev would have to go
| through a lot of manual work.
| nevernude wrote:
| We do support a number of other languages/ecosystem via a
| GitHub action[1] which generates a stackaid.json file we use to
| fund projects.
|
| All the package.json file we discover in your repos are
| actually automatically merged together, de-duped, etc before
| funds are allocated. In the app you can manage which set of
| repos/files you want to be included.
|
| 1. https://github.com/marketplace/actions/stackaid-
| dependency-g...
| yaddaor wrote:
| And pay 7.5%(!) of it to a company based in the US.
|
| When reallocating funds back after numerous project won't install
| some github app to claim the money collected on their behalf, are
| the 7.5% kept?
|
| What is your estimate on the fraction of projects that will
| actually take part?
|
| What about the huge amount of highly used projects that are not
| on GitHub?
| AntonyGarand wrote:
| It is my understanding that 7.5% is the cap, which should only
| be reached when you have very little dependencies. If you have
| 20 direct dependencies, each one will get 5% only, including
| StackAid.
|
| > When reallocating funds back after numerous project won't
| install some github app to claim the money collected on their
| behalf, are the 7.5% kept? The answer is on the site: The funds
| are held for 2 months, then reallocated: > A project's
| allocations accumulate for 2 months. If the project is not
| claimed by then, an automatic reallocation happens and the
| amount is redistributed to the other dependencies that are
| claimed. Reallocation occurs on a per subscription basis.
| nevernude wrote:
| It's important to note that 7.5% is the max we would make. The
| more direct dependencies you fund, the less we make. When we
| reallocate funds, the same rule applies.
|
| Our goal is to support projects outside of GitHub but we had to
| start somewhere and GitHub seemed like a pretty logical choice.
| postalrat wrote:
| Is 7.5% still the maximum after reallocation?
| nevernude wrote:
| Yes it is. If there are no additional projects to fund
| after reallocation we will donate the remaining funds to
| other organizations/charities.
| postalrat wrote:
| Could you just send a refund to the person donating? Or
| at least roll forward whatever wasn't donated into the
| next month.
| cayleyh wrote:
| Which organizations & charities specifically?
| nevernude wrote:
| We haven't chosen them yet but they will be rotated every
| so often. If you have suggestions we'd be happy to hear
| them.
| AntonyGarand wrote:
| [Edit: Wrong, see replies] I love the idea, but the math doesn't
| seem to check out on the simulation: The sum of the donation
| greatly exceeds the donated sum, even on the example page.
|
| Is it also possible to tweak / cap the weight of the donations?
| While I might have 20 dependencies for types a la '@types/node',
| I don't want DefinitelyTyped to account for 50% of my donation.
| nevernude wrote:
| Which example are you looking at? Perhaps you included the
| "Shared with" amounts to the total, which is actually what a
| project pays it's dependencies.
|
| Currently there isn't a way to change the weights. For projects
| like DefinitelyTyped, react, etc, they will have the option to
| either not claim funds and their allocations will
| redistributed, or they can elect to have their allocations pass
| through straight to their dependencies instead.
|
| Lastly there is always the option to create your own explicit
| set of dependencies you want to fund with a stackaid.json file
| in your repo
| AntonyGarand wrote:
| While taking a screenshot, I noticed my error: The donation
| input is monthly, but the donated amount is per year, so it
| should sum to 12x the monthly amount.
|
| Thanks for the answer!
| raybb wrote:
| I think this is an awesome idea, do you have a newsletter or
| twitter that I can follow for updates?
| nevernude wrote:
| Thanks! You can follow our other founder on twitter @dudley or
| our official account @stackaid. If you sign up for an invite
| we'll keep you posted on new developments as well.
| orangesite wrote:
| Step in the right direction. Thank you for sticking your necks
| out.
| dchuk wrote:
| I've always felt that the this concept, applied to charitable
| donations, would be killer.
|
| In particular, I want:
|
| - an app like m1 finance where I can build a "pie" of charities
| to donate to on a recurring basis, selected from a vetted list of
| upstanding charities
|
| - to clearly see how the charities use the funds, and how the app
| covers its own costs
|
| - for any contribution I make, I can see the tax benefits I'll
| receive for making it (I know that's probably super hard, but if
| someone can figure that out, I guarantee you'll see a spike in
| charitable giving)
|
| I (probably naively) think that a product like this could help
| eliminate a ton of social issues by better funding charities than
| the current system
| qwerty3344 wrote:
| > to clearly see how the charities use the funds
|
| https://www.charitynavigator.org/ is a start
| midenginedcoupe wrote:
| Sounds a bit like https://kiva.org
| soulofmischief wrote:
| Step 2 is the hard part. How do you break down a "marketing and
| advertising" budget consistently? You'll find most charities
| purposefully do not have detailed insight into these accounts.
| Vinnl wrote:
| Apart from that last point I think that's pretty much
| https://www.givingwhatwecan.org
| midenginedcoupe wrote:
| I was sure there was a similar service that folded recently-ish?
| I can't for the life of me remember its name :(
|
| My only hesitancy is how your company is structured. A
| charity/b-corp or similar would seem to align more with your
| domain, but I see no mention of anything like that on your site.
|
| Good luck though - this is a problem that definitely needs
| solving.
| nevernude wrote:
| Are you thinking of Flossbank[1]? We are currently structured
| as an LLC. Are there specific concerns you have that would
| prevent you from using StackAid because of that choice? Our
| hope is that our actions and being good stewards of funding
| open source will help earn and keep your trust long term.
|
| 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31629261
| midenginedcoupe wrote:
| Ah, yes, I think you're right. It was Flossbank. Thanks!
|
| No, I'm not sure an LLC would prevent me from using it, but
| I'd probably choose to go with a competing org given the
| choice. Siphoning off profit over and above operating
| expenses from a sector that's already woefully underfunded is
| not a great look.
|
| I'll be watching with interest though, and will take a closer
| look when you support Scala+sbt dependencies, repos outside
| GitHub, and drop the need to grant your bot access to my
| private repos.
| nevernude wrote:
| Appreciate the feedback. In case you didn't see it already,
| we take a different approach to getting paid[1] that we
| think is more equitable.
|
| You can also use our GitHub action to publish a
| stackaid.json file with your dependencies to a new repo
| just for the purpose of giving us access. This was your
| repos/source say private to us, but your dependencies can
| still be funded. It's a bit more effort on your part but
| hopefully addresses the concern.
|
| 1.https://www.stackaid.us/#how-do-you-make-money
| iam-TJ wrote:
| Have you already considered working with/integrating with SPI [0]
| (Software In The Public Interest) that acts as legal and
| financial steward for many projects from large to small (e.g.
| Debian, NTPsec) ?
|
| [0] https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/
| boxcarr wrote:
| I wasn't aware of SPI. I'd be happy to look into it and reach
| out to them.
|
| To give some context, if SPI were interested in receiving money
| for repositories associated with SPI, they would work with the
| developers to claim those projects on StackAid and associate
| their Stripe account. SPI's governance model can then decide
| how to allocate those funds.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-14 23:00 UTC)