GitHub has technical solutions to technical problems. Developers with a problem to solve often find something they can use on GitHub. Although there are some more product-like repositories on GitHub, most repos are too far away from users to be called a product. They are free technical solutions for other developers to turn into product. GitHub has the building blocks - built by developers to address a technical issue, put out to the world for free. It is often unclear in what shape, if ever, a repo on GitHub will reach end users.
Contrast this with Product Hunt, which has an audience that extends outside of software developers. Although there are many AI-related repos trending on GitHub, none make their real-world use case as clear as Atua on Product Hunt. Atua gives “instant ChatGPT access on any Mac app with a simple hotkey”. Atua has a business model around this, whereas repos on GitHub are mainly free.
There is a gap between GitHub and end users. That gap consists of finding a real market opportunity, applying a business model, writing additional code for a specific use case, branding, support, and more. These parts are done within companies. Companies package open-source code, make it easy to use, provide distribution and support, and charge for it. Companies have a business model while open-source projects don’t.
Consider Linux as an example of how this typically looks today. Linux is open source. There is a plethora of distributions built on Linux, like Ubuntu and Manjaro. They package open-source code and make it easy for consumers and businesses to use. Ubuntu is as easy to get started with as Windows. That is because those who work at Ubuntu turn the Linux kernel into a product. Ubuntu comes with support if you pay for it. Other than that, revenues are primarily donation-driven along with advertising on the Ubuntu website. The company receives those revenues. This is opaque because it’s not obvious by default how the donations are used. It also imposes a constraint on the organization because the company can’t pay contributors broadly, even when it might be in their interest to do so.
Linux illustrates the dynamics but not the core issue. Because luckily for the Linux Kernel and people in general, there are organizations that bridge the gap between GitHub and end users. The real problem, or opportunity depending on how you want to view it, is in all the technical solutions on GitHub that never reach end users in some way - the repos that remain at the Linux-kernel stage rather than making it to the Ubuntu-stage.
But cryptocurrencies can change some of this. An under-appreciated fact of digital money is that it integrates natively with code, enabling it to have an intrinsic business model. It allows for an arbitrarily complex business model, integrated straight into the code. Incorporating payments directly into code is simpler because it can be done entirely within the realm of software development. It takes the business model fully into the home turf of developers.
Compare Linux to Uniswap. Uniswap is an open-source project, a decentralized crypto exchange. Not only is the Uniswap community building the algorithms required to run such an exchange and putting them out in the open. They are building the final pieces too - the actual exchange, with branding and web. Uniswap is a product. In the code, there are ways to enable fees that flow to tokenholders with each transaction. When the owners decide to, they can activate that fee that flows to the owners. Uniswap is a natural place to start with something like this because it is crypto-native. But there is no reason why the same model cannot be applied more broadly. Linux could have been open source all the way to the end user, with revenue flowing to those who contribute to the Linux kernel as well. The gap can be tightened, making it worthwhile to build open-source products rather than merely technical solutions to technical problems.