Can micropatronage save the net?

How can we fund common Internet infrastructure without risking that it will be captured by corporations or governments? He who pays the piper tends to call the tune, which is a bad thing when you don’t actually want the content of your network to be controlled.

This is a problem I’ve been worrying about a lot for the last couple of years. I’ve been working on one organized attack on it that I’m not ready to talk about in public yet (but will be soon; some of this blog’s regulars are already briefed in). I’ve just found something else that might help which I can talk about: micropatronage.

There’s a site called gittip.com that provides a way for people to give small recurring gifts, weekly, to a person or project team. Donors give it payment system information; weekly gifts are then automatically shipped unless donors elect to stop. It’s meant to handle small amounts, with an upper limit of $100 per patron/client pair per week.

Gittip has the interesting property that, as a patronage receiver, you don’t know who your patrons are – all you know is the total amount you’re being gifted. So people can fund you, but they can’t attach any strings. There’s still a kind of market check; if you’re not doing work that your donor base as a whole finds interesting, your patronage volume will drop.

As a mechanism for funding commons development that is insulated from political and commercial pressure this seems very promising. Of course it has other uses, too; creators of all kinds might be able to use it to turn reputation into a steady cash flow.

That is, if there are enough patrons. Chad Whitacre and his team are betting that a lot of people will actually prefer making small recurring donations to single lump-sum gifts. So far there is one piece of objective evidence that suggests they’re right: gittip development is itself funded through gittip.

Watch this space. Soon, the gittip team and I will try an interesting social experiment…