Not necessarily true. Your vision is going to be disliked by some, liked by others. The approval of the masses produces bad, safe, boring products, IMO.
Personally, the more I read this forum, the more I believe that you need competition, you need a little greed. For me, the goal is to build a system where one person can’t be in control of millions.
What I find intriguing about some of these open source projects is how it’s using a little competition to make sure people are moving along, things are getting done, but people are also choosing the level they want to contribute.
I also think that if someone brings necessary capital to a project, they deserve that level of involvement. Which is why I like the shareholder model where the capital is spread among so many people that there isn’t one person expecting to be in control.
I’m also really intrigued by the idea of internal rating systems of people on a project. One thing I worry about is ranking people based on time because time ≠ progress. Lazy people, green people, less talented people are going to take longer to complete the same task. Someone with a textbook next to them, slowly making his way through a task, should be compensated less than someone making massive progress. But then you need something to compensate for sloppiness too. So a peer review system is pretty key. Are there any systems that exist like this already?