Economics · proposal
The Open Stewardship Economy
A proposal, not a proven business model. Nobody has yet shown that it works, and we haven't either. The pilot is how we intend to find out.
We are not trying to eliminate software profits. We are trying to separate them from artificial scarcity and dependency.
The short version
The code is free. Anyone may use it, copy it, run it themselves or hire someone else to run it. What people pay for is a steward: a person or team who keeps the software working, safe and up to date, helps when something goes wrong, and answers for the result. Customers stay because the steward is good, not because leaving is hard.
What are customers paying for, if the software is free?
Not the code. They pay for outcomes they would otherwise have to produce themselves: software that keeps working and gets fixed quickly when it doesn't, security updates and tested backups, a real answer from someone who knows the system, careful improvements, and a named party who makes commitments in writing and makes things right when they miss. Above all, they pay for not having to think about any of it.
Why pay a steward instead of self-hosting?
For the same reason people pay a mechanic even though repair manuals are free. Self-hosting is always allowed, and it should be documented well enough to be realistic. But running software well takes time, skill and vigilance that most people would rather spend elsewhere. A steward is worth paying when they cost less than the customer's own time and risk. Because the customer can always leave, being worth it is the only way a steward keeps getting paid. That keeps the deal honest.
How AI changes the math
Writing code used to be the expensive part, so it made sense to bill by the hour or charge for copies. AI makes writing and changing code far cheaper. That pushes the price of code toward zero and squeezes anyone paid by the hour or by the copy.
It doesn't shrink the value of reliable, accountable service. It shrinks the cost of delivering it. When stewards are paid for outcomes instead of hours, efficiency becomes their reward. A living that depends only on billed hours shrinks as the work gets faster. Paying for results lets stewards keep the benefit. This isn't a rule against hourly work: consulting by the hour is fine, and many stewards will mix it with other income. The point is that nobody's livelihood should have to depend on it.
How a highly automated steward earns a good living
Income comes from the number of customers a steward serves well, times what each one finds that service worth. Automation raises the first number without lowering the second.
Hypothetical arithmetic, to show the shape of the idea and not as evidence: a steward who looks after 40 small organizations at $150 a month each would bring in $72,000 a year before costs. Larger or better-run services could earn more, and smaller ones less. Whether people will pay that, and whether one person can deliver it well, are exactly the questions the pilot asks.
Measuring the attention a steward saves
Two kinds of attention matter, and they should not be confused. Stewardship attention is the steward's work. It is valuable, and it should be paid. User attention is the customer's time and focus. Good software and good stewards ask for less of it.
Measure the second in plain time first:
- Before stewardship starts, ask how long routine tasks take: updates, outages, backups, support.
- Afterwards, ask again, and count the problems the customer never had to deal with.
- Report minutes and hours, with how they were measured and whether they were self-reported.
- Anyone who converts time into money should publish the rate they used and why. We don't propose one universal price for an hour of a person's life.
- Never measure attention by watching people. Ask them, with their consent. Time spent in an app is not a success metric. Less time needed is.
How contributors share in the value
None of these is settled, and stewards can combine them. A steward can pass a published share of revenue upstream to the people who maintain the software. Customers can fund specific fixes or features, which are then released to everyone. Many users can jointly fund upkeep of shared software through an open budget. And because the code is free, anyone who improves it can also become a steward of it. Credit should be public and honest about who did what, whether a person or an AI.
Changing stewards without losing anything
A customer should be able to walk away at any time with everything they need:
- The source code is already public.
- How to build, deploy and run the software is written down.
- Their data can be exported in an open format, on request, without a fee.
- Configuration and access are handed over.
- There is no exit fee and no contract designed to trap them.
The test is simple: could another steward, or the customer, take over next week? If not, there is lock-in to fix.
Trust as the competitive edge
When anyone can offer the same software, stewards compete on what can't be copied: track record, response times, security practice, honest reporting and keeping promises. Publishing service levels, incident reports and how prices are set are ways to earn that trust. Over time, they become the steward's reputation.
Ways to get paid
All optional, and stewards may mix them:
- Stewardship subscriptions. A monthly fee for hosting, updates, monitoring and support.
- Service guarantees. Pay for a promised level of uptime, response time or recovery, with credits or refunds when it is missed.
- Outcome-based pricing. Pay for results, such as a migration completed or a problem solved, rather than hours.
- Community-funded maintenance. Many users jointly fund the upkeep of software they share, through a public budget.
- Setup and migration. One-time fees to get started, or to move, including moving away.
- Paid improvements. Customers fund changes they need, which are then released to everyone.
Open books, private lives
Transparency is how a steward earns trust. It is not a vow of poverty. A steward working under this idea should be willing to say what customers pay, what is included, what it costs to run, how prices are set, and where money goes, in categories. Nobody has to publish personal salaries, household finances or anything private about an individual. "Steward compensation" can be a single line. Profit is allowed. Hiding how a price is set is what erodes trust.
What we don't know yet
- Will enough people pay when they could run the software themselves for free?
- Will competition between stewards push prices too low to live on?
- Can one person, helped by AI, deliver reliable service without burning out?
- Does this work beyond small, technically minded customers?
These questions are why a real pilot comes before more tools.
How this relates to earlier drafts
The founding drafts focused on cost recovery and published operating costs. This proposal keeps open books as an accountability principle, but drops the idea that stewards should earn only their costs. That is a change to proposed charter text, so it goes through the usual process: see the RFC. It is the founder's proposal, not community consensus.